RANJEET KUMAR RAM @ RANJEET KUMAR DAS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
Appeal (Crl.), 1831 of 2011, Judgment Date: May 15, 2015
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1831 OF 2011
RANJEET KUMAR RAM @
RANJEET KUMAR DAS ..Appellant
Versus
STATE OF BIHAR ..Respondent
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1820-1821 OF 2013
PANDIT @ SANJAY MAHTO ETC. ..Appellants
Versus
STATE OF BIHAR ..Respondent
AND
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1817 Of 2013
CHINTOO SINGH ..Appellant
Versus
STATE OF BIHAR ..Respondent
J U D G M E N T
R. BANUMATHI, J.
These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 11.10.2010 passed by
the Patna High Court in Criminal Appeals (DB) No.268/2008, 357/2008,
451/2008, No.156/2008 and Death Reference No.6/2008, in and by which, the
High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the accused persons confirming
the verdict of conviction on the charge of murder of five years old boy
Vicky and dismissed the death reference by converting the death sentence of
Chintoo Singh (A-5) into life imprisonment.
2. On 27.02.2006, Sunil Kumar Singh-PW8, a vegetable vendor in
Paswan Chowk, lodged a complaint stating that his son Vicky aged five years
was playing near PW8’s vegetable shop and Rubi Kumari aged seven years
sister of the victim boy Vicky was also playing with him. At that time two
unknown persons [later identified as Chintoo Singh (A-5) and Birendra
Bhagat (A-3)] offered chocolates to Vicky and other children and took away
Vicky saying that they would come back and drop the boy; but the boy Vicky
did not come back. On the above complaint on 28.02.2006, a case was
registered as P.S. Case No.105/2006 at Hazipur Town (Industrial Area),
Police Station, Vaishali. Inspite of search, the missing boy could not be
traced. After 5-6 days passed, Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1) and Sanjay (A-4),
who were also vegetable vendors in the same market i.e. at Paswan Chowk,
told PW8 that his son would come back if he would pay money. Nearly after
three months of the incident, on 23.06.2006, PW8 received a phone call and
the kidnappers demanded a ransom of four lakh rupees for return of his son;
but PW8 expressed his helplessness to meet the demand, and the demand was
reduced to two lakh rupees. Another telephone call was received by PW8 on
1.07.2006 and the final amount of ransom was fixed for Rs.1,05,000/-. On
3.07.2006, PW8 received another call from the kidnappers and PW8 informed
them that he has arranged the ransom money and PW8 was asked to bring the
money at New Gandak Bridge ahead of Line Hotel of Bachcha Babu at Sonepur.
When PW8 expressed fear in coming alone with money, he was instructed by
the kidnappers to come with his neighbours Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1) and
Sanjay (A-4).
3. In order to pay the ransom money, PW8 had withdrawn Rs.80,000/-
from his Savings Bank account with Bank of India at Rajendra Chowk, Hazipur
and PW-8 arranged balance money from his own savings and borrowings from
his father-in-law. On 4.07.2006, PW8 wrapped the ransom amount in a plastic
bag and kept it in a gunny bag under the carrier of his cycle and PW8
accompanied by Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1) and Sanjay (A-4) and Sanjeet (A-2)
proceeded to the place as instructed by the kidnappers. When they reached
the New Gandak Bridge, Sanjeet (A-2) got down from PW8’s cycle and went
inside a hut on the left side of the road and PW8 followed him. At that
time two persons came out and pulled away the money from the carrier of
PW8’s cycle. Sanjeet (A-2) informed PW8 that his brother-in-law-Birendra
Bhagat (A-3) lives in that hut and PW8 was informed that his son would be
returned by evening. Even after payment of the money, the boy was not
returned. To inquire about the boy, PW8 went to the hut and learnt from
the local people that Birendra Bhagat (A-3) is a criminal and the other
person was identified as Chintoo Singh (A-5). On 16.08.2006, PW8 informed
the investigating officer-Reeta Kumari (PW12), the names of the accused
persons and also about the demand and payment of money to the kidnappers.
4. Investigating Officer (PW-12) conducted a raid at Sonepur and
arrested Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1) and Sanjeet (A-2) and recorded their
statement. Based on the statement of Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1),
investigating officer recovered a currency note of five hundred rupee
containing the name of Sunil Kumar Singh-PW8, written in green ink in the
handwriting of PW8, from the house of Ranjeet Kumar Ram(A-1), which is
recorded in the seizure list (Ex.18). Thereafter, the accused persons
Sanjay (A-4), Birendra Bhagat (A-3) and Chintoo Singh (A-5) were also
arrested and their statements were recorded. Investigating Officer-PW12, on
the basis of statements went to Fakuli Out-Post and learnt about recovery
of dead body of a boy aged 4-5 years near the culvert of Bhagwanpur village
wherein (Fakuli OP) P.S. Case No.128/06 dated 22.04.2006 under Sections
302, 201 and 34 IPC was registered. PW12 obtained from Fakuli police the
seizure list relating to recovery of vest and half pant of deceased boy and
his photograph. From the photograph shown to PW8, he identified the dead
body of child as well as clothes, as that of Vicky. After the completion of
the investigation, PW-12 filed the chargesheet against five accused under
Sections 364A, 302/34, 120B and 201 IPC.
5. To bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution has
examined fourteen witnesses and exhibited documents and material objects.
When questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied incriminating
evidence and circumstances put against them. Defence has examined seven
defence witnesses.
6. Vide judgment dated 24/28.01.2008, the First Additional
Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hazipur convicted the accused Chintoo Singh (A-
5) and Birendra Bhagat (A-3) under Section 364A IPC and sentenced them to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.10,000/-. For his
conviction under Sections 302/34 IPC, Chintoo Singh (A-5) was awarded death
sentence. Sanjeet (A-2), Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1) and Sanjay (A-4) were
convicted under Section 364A/120B IPC and were sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for life and were imposed a fine of rupees Rs.10,000/-
each with default clause. Further, Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1), Sanjay (A-4)
and Birendra Bhagat (A-3) were convicted under Section 302/34 IPC and were
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of
Rs.10,000/- each with default clause. The sentences imposed on Birendra
Bhagat (A-3), Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1) and Sanjay (A-4) were ordered to run
concurrently.
7. Being aggrieved by the verdict of conviction, accused filed
Criminal Appeals No. 268/2008, 357/2008, 451/2008 and 156/2008 in the High
Court of Patna. For confirmation of death sentence awarded to Chintoo
Singh(A-5), State filed Death Reference Case No.6/2008. The High Court
vide common impugned judgment dated 11.10.2010, dismissed the appeals filed
by the accused persons and thereby confirmed the conviction and sentence
imposed on accused A-1, A-3 to A-5. The High Court converted the death
sentence awarded to Chintoo Singh (A-5) as life imprisonment. Accepting
the defence plea of alibi, the High Court acquitted 2nd accused–Sanjeet in
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.249/2008. In these appeals, appellants assail the
correctness of the verdict of the conviction and sentence imposed on them.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that Rubi Kumari
(PW2) aged seven years, daughter of PW8, the key witness has not implicated
Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1) and in her statement she has identified only
Birendra Bhagat (A-3) and PW2 being a child witness her sole testimony
cannot form the basis for conviction. It was submitted that Sunil Kumar
Singh (PW8) on his own has requested Ranjeet Kumar Ram(A-1) and Sanjay (A-
4) to accompany him to pay the alleged ransom and merely because A-1, A-2
and A-4 accompanied PW8, they are being falsely implicated. Learned
counsel for Chintoo Singh (A-5) submitted that in the test identification
parade, PW2 has not identified Chintoo Singh (A-5) and her
identification of A-5 in the open court is unreliable and without proper
appreciation of the flaws in the prosecution case, courts below erred in
convicting the accused.
9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
State contended that the sole eye-witness-Rubi Kumari (PW2) has
satisfactorily identified accused-Birendra Bhagat (A-3) in the test
identification parade and while she was examined in the court she has
identified Chintoo Singh (A-5). It was submitted that PW8 has clearly
deposed that Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1), Sanjay (A-4) in conspiracy with
Birendra Bhagat (A-3), Chintoo Singh (A-5), induced him to pay ransom
money, even when no such demand was made, which clearly shows their
involvement in the commission of the offence. It was submitted that the
kidnappers asked PW8 to bring Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1), Sanjay (A-4) and
that they accompanied PW8 to pay the money which proves the complicity of
accused Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1) and Sanjay (A-4) in the commission of the
offence and upon proper appreciation of evidence, courts below rightly
convicted the appellants for the offence under Sections 302/34, 364A, 120B
and 201 IPC and the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below
warrant no interference.
10. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the
impugned judgment, evidence and material on record.
11. Sunil Kumar Singh (PW8) and his wife Nilam Devi (PW6) are
vegetable vendors in Paswan Chowk Market, Hazipur. Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1)
and Sanjeet (A-2) [since acquitted] are brothers who are also vegetable
vendors in the same market having shop situated nearby the shop of PW8 and
Birendra Bhagat (A-3) is their brother-in-law. In her evidence, PW6 stated
that first accused and his brother Sanjeet were jealous of them as PW8 had
good business. Though jealousy is suggested as a motive, but it appears
that the commission of murder of victim boy Vicky is mainly due to
kidnapping for ransom.
12. Key witness PW2-Rubi Kumari is aged seven years and is the
sister of the deceased boy Vicky. PW2 deposed that on the date of
incident i.e. 27.02.2006, PW2 was playing around the place where PW8 was
selling the vegetables. PW2 stated that two persons came on a motor cycle
and gave chocolate to the children including PW8’s son Vicky and made Vicky
to sit on the tank of the motor cycle and took him away. PW2 stated that
the man who took her brother-Vicky told that he would come back and drop
her brother. Rubi Kumari (PW2) identified Birendra Bhagat (A-3) during the
test identification parade and in the court she identified Chintoo Singh (A-
5) as the person who offered chocolate to her and to her brother and took
him away. Inspite of searching cross-examination, PW2 remained consistent
throughout her cross-examination.
13. On behalf of Chintoo Singh (A-5), it was contended that PW2’s
testimony is not reliable as she has not identified Chintoo Singh during
the test identification parade and that PW2’s identification of Chintoo
Singh (A-5) in the court was not reliable. Identification of the accused
by the witness soon after the former’s arrest is of course important
because it lends assurance to the prosecution, in addition to corroboration
of the evidence of the witnesses. As noticed earlier, in the open court
during the trial, Rubi Kumari (PW2) identified Chintoo Singh (A-5) and she
has not identified him in the test identification parade conducted in the
prison. Ordinarily, courts do not give much credence to the identification
made in the court for the first time; but the identification of the accused
for the first time in court is permissible in law. But the said principle
has to be applied in the facts and circumstances of each case. While PW2
was examined in the court, trial court which had the opportunity of seeing
and observing demeanour of PW2 found her version identifying Chintoo Singh
(A-5) trustworthy and we see no reason to take a different view.
14. At the time of occurrence, as well, while deposing in Court,
Rubi Kumari (PW2) was aged only seven years. Evidence of the child witness
and its credibility would depend upon the circumstances of each case. Only
precaution which the court has to bear in mind while assessing the evidence
of a child witness is that the witness must be a reliable one. Before PW2
was examined as a witness in the court during trial, her statement under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate (PW13). In his
evidence PW13 has stated that he tested the understanding of witness Rubi
Kumari (PW2) and after being satisfied about her understanding, recorded
her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. When PW2 was examined as a witness
in the court during trial, the trial judge had also put preliminary
questions to the child witness Rubi Kumari (PW2) and satisfied that she was
capable of understanding the questions put to her. When the trial court
has ascertained the discernment of PW2 and has formed an opinion that PW2-
Rubi Kumari is competent to testify and then recorded her evidence, we see
no reason to discredit PW2’s testimony. PW2 though sole witness, by
concurrent findings courts below found her evidence unassailable and we
find no ground to take a different view.
15. On 4.7.2006, PW8 wrapped the ransom amount in a plastic bag and
kept it in a gunny bag under the carrier of his cycle and accompanied by
Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A1), Sanjeet (A-2) and Sanjay (A-4), PW8 went to pay the
ransom amount to the kidnappers. When they reached New Gandak Bridge,
accused-Sanjeet (A-2) got down from the cycle and went inside the hut on
the left side of the road and PW8 followed him. At that time, two persons
came out of the hut and took away the money from the carrier of PW8’s
cycle. In the test identification parade, PW8 identified Chintoo Singh (A-
5) and Birendra Bhagat (A-3) as the persons who took away ransom money from
the carrier of his cycle. The evidence of PW8 amply corroborates the
evidence of PW2 as to the complicity of Chintoo Singh (A-5) and Birendra
Bhagat (A-3) in the offence.
16. Evidence of Rubi Kumari (PW2) coupled with the evidence of
Sunil Kumar Singh (PW8) clearly establishes that the accused Chintoo Singh
(A-5) and Birendra Bhagat (A-3) kidnapped PW8’s son Vicky and PW8 informant
paid Rs.1.05,000/- to them as ransom amount. On the evidence of PW2,
courts below rightly recorded concurrent findings that the prosecution has
established that deceased boy Vicky was last seen alive in the company of
accused Chintoo Singh (A-5) and Birendra Bhagat (A-3). It is for the
accused to explain how and when they parted company of the deceased child
Vicky. Absolutely, there is no explanation forthcoming from the accused
which is a strong militating circumstance against the accused Chintoo Singh
(A-5) and Birendra Bhagat (A-3) which indicates that they are responsible
for the crime. This is further fortified by the evidence of PW8 who stated
that the accused Nos.3 and 5 had snatched the money kept in the carrier of
his cycle, when he was near the hut of Birendra Bhagat (A-3).
17. Based on the statement of Chintoo Singh (A-5) and Birendra
Bhagat (A-3), investigating officer- Reeta Kumari (PW12) went to Fakuli
O.P. and learnt that the body of a deceased boy was recovered on
22.4.2006 beneath the pulia in between Bhagwanpur-Bahadurpur road for
which F.I.R. in (Fakuli OP) P.S. Case No.128/2006 dated 22.4.2006 under
Sections 302, 201 IPC read with Section 34 IPC was registered. PW12
received the clothes (material Ext.11), photographs of the deceased boy and
PW8 has identified the said clothes (material Ext.11) as that of his son
and also photographs (Ext.3 & 3/1) as of deceased boy Vicky.
Identification of clothes recovered from the body of deceased boy beneath
the pulia and identification of the photographs and knowledge of accused
No.3 and as to the place of dead body is a strong militating circumstance
against the accused Chintoo Singh (A-5) and Birendra Bhagat (A-3).
18. Learned counsel for the accused Chintoo Singh(A-5) and Birendra
Bhagat (A-3) contended that the alleged disclosure statement of the accused
is hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act which makes the disclosure
statement inadmissible and the statement recorded from the accused did not
lead to disclosure of any fact so as to make it admissible under Section
27 of the Evidence Act and there is nothing to connect the accused with the
dead body of a boy recovered from beneath the pulia in connection with
(Fakuli OP) P.S. Case No.128/2006. It was submitted that the link to
connect the accused with the murder of deceased boy Vicky is missing and
that the confession statement of accused Chintoo Singh (A-5) and
Birendra Bhagat (A-3) recorded by police is not admissible in evidence
which was not kept in view by the courts below.
19. So far as the recovery of dead body of boy under the culvert
between Bhagwanpur and Bahadarpur road is concerned, as noticed earlier, a
F.I.R. was registered in (Fakuli OP) P.S. Case No.128/2006 dated 22.4.2006
under Sections 302, 201 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. Though the statement
recorded from the accused Chintoo Singh (A-5) and Birendra Bhagat (A-3)
did not lead to any recovery as admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence
Act, their statement led to the disclosure of the details of the dead body
and registration of F.I.R. in (Fakuli OP) P.S. Case No.128/2006. If no
statement was recorded from the accused, place of the dead body of deceased
boy would have remained unknown.
20. So far as the contention regarding the inadmissibility of the
statement recorded from the accused Chintoo Singh (A-5) and Birendra Bhagat
(A-3), of course, the statement did not lead to the disclosure of any fact
as admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Ideally based on the
statement recorded from the accused, the investigating officer should have
taken the accused to the alleged place of occurrence which would have led
to the disclosure of place of occurrence and omission to do so, is only a
lapse in the investigation. Even if it is accepted that there was
deficiency in investigation that cannot be a ground to doubt the
prosecution version which is otherwise cogent and credible.
21. It is well settled that in criminal trials even if the
investigation is defective, the rest of the evidence must be scrutinized
independently of the impact of the defects in the investigation otherwise
the criminal trial will plummet to the level of the investigation.
Criminal trials should not be made casualties for any lapses committed by
the investigating officer. In State of M. P. vs. Mansingh &
Ors., (2003) 10 SCC 414, it was held that even if there was deficiencies in
the investigation that cannot be a ground for discrediting the prosecution
version. The same view was reiterated in Sheo Shankar Singh vs. State of
Jharkhand And Anr., (2011) 3 SCC 654 and C. Muniappan & Ors. vs. State of
Tamil Nadu, (2010) 9 SCC 567.
22. We are not impressed with the arguments advanced on behalf
of the accused Chintoo Singh (A-5) and Birendra Bhagat (A-3) that there is
nothing to connect the accused with the body found under the bridge.
Corpus delecti in some cases may not be possible to be traced or recovered.
If the recovery of a dead body is an absolute necessity to convict an
accused, in many cases the culprits would go unpunished as the accused
would manage to see that the dead body is destroyed or not recovered. Any
lapse in recovery of the dead body or missing link qua the dead body will
not enure to the benefit of the accused.
23. Upon appreciation of evidence of PW2 and PW8, the courts below
recorded cogent and concurrent reasonings that Chintoo Singh (A-5) and
Birendra Bhagat (A-3), for kidnapping the boy Vicky for ransom and
committed murder and the conviction of Chintoo Singh (A-5) and Birendra
Bhagat (A-3) under Sections 364A, 302 and 201 IPC and the sentence of
imprisonment imposed on them cannot be interfered with.
24. Conviction qua Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1) and Sanjay (A-4):
PW6–Nilam Devi and PW8–Sunil Kumar Singh, mother and father respectively of
the deceased boy Vicky are the vegetable vendors in the Paswan Chowk
Market. Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1) and Sanjay (A-4) were also selling
vegetables in the same market. In her evidence, PW6 stated that Ranjeet
Kumar Ram (A-1) and Sanjay (A-4) were jealous of PW6 and PW8 as in their
vegetable shops they were having good business. PW8 in his evidence stated
that he was persuaded by Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1) and Sanjay (A-4) to pay
the ransom money and get back his son even when no such demand was made by
the kidnappers viz., Chintoo Singh (A-5) and Birendra Bhagat (A-3). After
number of phone calls, demand of ransom was reduced to Rs.1,05,000/- and
PW8 was asked to deliver the amount. PW8 categorically stated that when he
expressed fear of going alone, kidnappers told him over phone to bring his
neighbours Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1) and Sanjay (A-4). PW8 withdrew
Rs.80,000/- from his Savings Bank account with Bank of India at Rajendra
Chowk and Ext.5 is the Savings Bank passbook of PW8. PW8 took loan of
Rs.20,000/- from his father-in-law Sakal Mahto and PW8 was already having
Rs.5,000/-. In his evidence, PW8 stated that the amount he arranged was of
denomination of five hundred rupees and in some of the currency notes, he
has signed. PW8 stated that he wrapped the ransom amount in a plastic bag
and kept in a gunny bag in the carrier of his cycle and when they reached
New Gandak Bridge, Sanjeet (A-2) got down from his cycle and went to the
hut on the left side of the road and when PW8 followed him, Chintoo Singh
(A-5) and Birendra Bhagat (A-3) pulled away money kept in the gunny bag
from PW8’s cycle. Only accused Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1) and Sanjay (A-4)
had the knowledge that the money was kept in the gunny bag in the carrier
of cycle. From the conduct of A-5 and A-3, it appeared as if they were
already having knowledge about money being kept in the gunny bag in the
carrier of the cycle of PW8 which only indicates prior meeting of minds of
the accused.
25. Birendra Bhagat (A-3) is the brother-in-law of Ranjeet Kumar
Ram (A-1). Had there been no complicity of Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1) in the
commission of the offence, on knowing for the first time that his brother-
in-law Birendra Bhagat (A-3) was involved in the kidnapping, Ranjeet Kumar
Ram (A-1) must have been greatly shocked and he must have questioned his
brother-in-law Birendra Bhagat (A-3) as to why he had committed such
gruesome act of kidnapping his neighbour’s son? But Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-
1) had not reacted to the situation and he remained quiet. His conduct in
not showing any reaction to his brother-in-law’s act of kidnapping of PW8’s
son, which is not in consonance with natural human conduct. This conduct of
first accused coupled with the evidence that he has been persuading PW8 to
pay the money to kidnappers to get back his son leads to the irresistible
inference that accused Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1) shared the common intention
with accused Nos.3 and 5 in kidnapping the child and committing murder.
26. Recovery of five hundred rupee currency note (Ex.1) from the
house of Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1) is yet another link strengthening his
complicity in the commission of offence. Pursuant to the statement of
accused Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1), currency note of Rs.500/- which
contained signature of PW8-Sunil Kumar Singh in green ink was seized from
the house of first accused under Ext.1 seizure list (Ext.18). PW4-Raj
Banshi Devi, a neighbour had spoken about the recovery of Ext.1 currency
note of Rs.500/- from the house of accused No.1 and PW8 had identified his
signature on Ext.1 currency note. Recovery of a part of ransom amount from
the house of Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A1) is a determining link completing the
chain of circumstantial evidence against Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1), pointing
to his guilt.
27. Defence plea of accused Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1) is that some
time prior to the occurrence, there was an altercation between him and PW8
and at that time PW8-Sunil Kumar Singh stated that he would falsely
implicate Ranjeet in a criminal case. To prove the defence plea, defence
witnesses Baiju Sharma and Budhan Paswan were examined as DWs 4 and 5. The
defence plea that PW8 falsely implicated Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1) and his
family members in the offence of kidnapping and murder of his son defies
logic and rightly rejected by the trial court as well by the High Court.
28. Direct evidence of common intention is seldom available. Such
common intention of the accused can only be inferred from the evidence and
circumstances appearing from proved facts of case. In furtherance of
common intention, Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1) had been persuading PW8 to pay
the ransom amount even before there was no such demand from the kidnappers
viz., Chintoo Singh (A-5), Birendra Bhagat (A-3). Considering the act of
Ranjeet Kumar Ram and the proved circumstances, courts below rightly held
that Ranjeet Kumar Ram had the common intention of kidnapping and
committing murder of the boy Vicky and the courts below rightly convicted
Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1) under Section 364A IPC and Sections 302/34 IPC.
29. As far as Sanjay Mahto (A4) is concerned, he is also a
vegetable vendor in Paswan Chowk Market. Though the circumstances that he
has also persuaded PW8 to pay the ransom amount to kidnappers and also
accompanied PW8 to Sonepur to pay the ransom amount to the kidnappers,
Sanjay might have accompanied PW8 as a bonafide helper. Neither any
recovery was made from Sanjay nor any incriminating evidence is available
against him. So far as Sanjay Mahto (A-4) is concerned, though there
may be strong suspicion about his involvement in the commission of the
offence, suspicion however strong it may be, cannot take the place of
proof. The case against Sanjay (A-4) is not proved beyond reasonable doubt
and his conviction is liable to be set aside.
30. Criminal Appeals No.1831/2011, 1817/2013 and 1821/2013: These
appeals filed by Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1), Chintoo Singh (A-5) and Birendra
Bhagat (A-3) are dismissed.
31. Criminal Appeal No.1820/2013: Conviction of Sanjay (A-4) is set
aside and this appeal is allowed. He is acquitted of the charges and he is
ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any case.
…………………..J.
(T.S. Thakur)
…………………..J.
(R. Banumathi)
New Delhi;
May 15, 2015