Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Vinod Solanki And Anr vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp on 30 July, 2019
Author: Goverdhan Bardhar
Bench: Sabina, Goverdhan Bardhar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 861/2015
1. Vinod Solanki son of Vijay Singh b/c jat, R/o Village Garhi
Guljari Post Midakur District Agra (U.P.)
2. Dheeraj son of Gajendra Singh b/c jat R/o Mohan Nagar,
behind Birla Mandir, Vrindawan Road, Mathura
(At present confined in Central Jail, Jaipur)
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through PP
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vimal Singh Faujdar, Advocate with Mr. Sushil Pujari, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mrs. Alka Bhatnagar, for the State HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR Judgment 30/07/2019 Goverdhan Bardhar, J Challenge in the instant criminal appeal has been made by the appellants to the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 14.7.2015 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Jaipur Metropolitan [for short 'the learned trial Court'] in Sessions Case No. 10/2013, State of Rajasthan Vs. Vinod Solanki and Ors., whereby the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:- (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 04:14:50 PM)
(2 of 16) [CRLA-861/2015]
U/s.364-A IPC:
Life imprisonment and fine of
Rs.25,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months simple imprisonment.
U/s.302 read with 34 IPC:
Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months simple imprisonment.
U/s.201 read with 34 IPC:
Three years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months simple imprisonment.
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Facts of the case in nutshell are that on 25.3.2013 complainant Daudayal Sharma (PW-1) submitted a written report (Ex.P1) to the SHO, Police Station Varun Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur to the effect that on 24.3.2013 at about 9:30 a.m. his son Ravikant along-with his companion Vinod Choudhary went on a motor-bike for job but till date he had not returned. Yesterday i.e. on 25.3.2013 at about 8-8:30 p.m. one call was received on his mobile No.9782115230 from mobile No.9887770750. The person who made the call asked him whether he is father of Ravi. He told him that if he wanted to see his son alive he has to deposit Rs.15,00,000/- in account No.AXIS BANK by 26.3.2013 but if he fails to deposit the aforesaid amount by 26.3.2013 then his son will not remain alive. Thus, his abducted son be recovered.
(Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 04:14:50 PM)
(3 of 16) [CRLA-861/2015] On the basis of aforesaid written report (Ex.P1), FIR No.165/2013 was registered for the offence under section 364-A IPC. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons for the offences under Sections 364-A, 302, 201, 120-B IPC in the Court concerned.
Learned trial court framed charges against the accused namely; Dharmendra and Ajay Tiwari for the offences under Sections 364-A, 302/34, 201/120-B IPC and against accused Vinod Solanki and Dheeraj under Sections 364-A, 302/34, 201/34 and 120-B IPC. The appellants denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case recorded statements of twenty one witnesses and eighty five documents were got exhibited. Thereafter, the accused/appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence the accused appellant did not produce any witness but exhibited four documents. The appellants aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment/order of conviction and sentence passed by learned trial court dated 14.07.2015 have preferred this criminal appeal.
Learned counsel for the accused appellants has argued that in the present case investigation was made by the Investigating Officers of two States i.e. Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh. The investigation made in the Rajasthan by the Investigating Officer disclosed the story in challan that Ravikant (deceased) died due to strangulation by towel. However, the Investigating Officer of Uttar Pradesh State conducted investigation on the basis of (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 04:14:50 PM) (4 of 16) [CRLA-861/2015] statement PW21-Dr. R.N. Garg, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of deceased (Ravi Kant) disclosed that he died due to asphyxia as a result of drowning. Star witnesses of the prosecution did not support the prosecution story. PW2-Manoj Kumar deposed in examination-in-chief that on 24.03.2013 at about 8'o clock accused Dheeraj left his rented room situated at Mansarovar saying that he has some urgent work at home but in cross-examination this witness deposed that he left Dheeraj at about 11'o clock at Sindhi Camp Bus Stand from where he left for his village. Thereafter, he had not contacted him. On 24.03.2013, this witness deposed, that Vinod took Ravikant from his rented house at Mansarovar, whereas as per the FIR it has come on record that Ravikant left home for job at about 9:30 AM with Vinod on his motor-bike. Learned trial court erred in not recording the statements of family members of accused Dheeraj, who are residing since long in Nadia Mohalla, Bharatpur, District Bharatpur, where the accused Dheeraj stayed there from 24.03.2013 to 26.03.2013. The accused did not make any extra judicial confession. The accused and the deceased were not last seen together.
Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State opposed the appeal and supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court.
The prosecution case rests on
circumstantial evidence.
(Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 04:14:50 PM)
(5 of 16) [CRLA-861/2015]
Complainant Daudayal Sharma (PW-1) who is father of the deceased Ravikant Sharma reiterated the averments made in the written report. This witness deposed that his son used to reside on rent in house No.221/13, Kaveri Path, Mansarovar and he used to work as M.R. Along-with him Manoj Sharma R/o Village Nayala, Tehsil Rajakhera, District Dholpur and Rahul Mudgal and Vinod Choudhary used to reside. On 26.3.2013 when he reached at Jaipur he asked from the companions of Ravikant (since deceased) namely Manoj, Rahul, Rahul Mudgal about his son and asked with whom did he go. Then they told him that on 24.03.2013 at about 10:00 a.m. his son went with Vinod on motorbike to Kaman. Thereafter, he asked that where had he gone. Then they replied that he had gone to Ajay Tiwari's place. He made call on the phone of Ajay Tiwari but his mobile was switched off. During the course of investigation he came to know on 25.3.2013 that a dead body of unknown person is lying in the field of Village Bachhgaon. The dead body of an unknown person was unclaimed, therefore the police cremated the same. PW1 deposed that when he was at Jaipur, Ajay Tiwari made a call and told that Ravi is with Vinod and told to make arrangement of money and assured that he would get Ravikant released from custody of Vinod. Upon this he sent his family members and relatives to Ajay Tiwari's home in Kaman. Vinod Solanki came along with his brother-in-law Dharmendra for talks. In the meeting nothing could be settled and due to failure of the settlement talks, Vinod Solanki along-with his (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 04:14:50 PM) (6 of 16) [CRLA-861/2015] brother-in-law ran away and thereafter, from cell No.9887770750 of his son he received threats with demand of money. On 24.3.2013 Vinod Solanki and Dheeraj confessed in front of him before police that after committing murder in village Bachhgaon they left the dead body in a field. PW-1 further deposed that he had identified the dead body of his son from the photographs shown by the police. PW-1 identified accused Vinod Solanki, Dheeraj Choudhary, Ajay Tiwari and Dharmendra Singh Choudhary in Court and deposed that all the four hatched conspiracy and committed murder.
Manoj Kumar (Pw-2) deposed that on 24.3.2013 at about 8:00 a.m. Dheeraj told him that due to some work, he is going to his village. Thereafter, he left for the village. This witness further deposed that his house No.21/213 is situated at Kaveri Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur in which deceased Ravikant, he, Rahul Sharma, Rahul Mudgal, Dheeraj Choudhary @ Rikky, Vinod Solanki used to reside on rent. Many times Ajay Tiwari along-with Dharmendra who is brother-in-law (jija) of Vinod Solanki came at the room. Thereafter, he made call on the phone of Ravikant for calling him to take meals but he told him not to wait and whenever he comes he would take food. At about 2:30-3:00 o'clock he again made a call on the phone of Ravikant but it was switched off. Thereafter, father of deceased lodged the FIR. The police arrested accused Vinod Solanki vide arrest memo Ex.P3, arrest memo of accused Dheeraj is (Ex.P4), seizure memo (Ex.P5), seizure memo (Ex.P6), (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 04:14:50 PM) (7 of 16) [CRLA-861/2015] seizure memo parchejat (Ex.P7), crime detail form (Ex.P8), crime details form (Ex.P9), phard pesgi mobile (Ex.P10), recovery memo (Ex.P11) and crime details form (Ex.P12) respectively.
PW-4 Bijendra deposed that Daudayal Sharma (complainant) is his uncle (mausa). He received an information regarding incident of abduction of Ravi. He along-with his mother came to Dholpur. He along- with his mother stayed in Bharatpur. Afterwards, he, Rahul, Narendra, Lajja Ram, Rajesh, Ramkumar etc. reached Kaman. At the petrol pump Ajay Tiwari met them, who took them at his house. After gap of 15 minutes Vinod also reached there and he said that if payment of Rs.15,00,000/- is made the child would be released. He (Vinod) also told that the child is kept at some nearby place.
PW-6 Rajveer Singh deposed that he is resident of Village Bachhgaon, District Mathura (Uttar Pradesh). On 25.3.2013 at 11:30 a.m. when he was going towards his field then he found some persons standing in the field of Bhura. He saw a dead body of unknown person in the field and it was wearing Reebok shoes and black shirt, aged around 22-23 years. He gave information to the police vide information memo Ex-P13. PW-6 is also witness of Panchayatnamas (Ex-P14 & Ex-P15).
Ranveer Singh (PW-8) deposed that on 25.3.2013 he was posted as Constable in Police Chowki, Sonk (U.P.). At about 12:00 p.m. he received an information that a dead body of an unknown person is lying in the field near Bachhgaon. He reached on (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 04:14:50 PM) (8 of 16) [CRLA-861/2015] the spot and found the dead body lying there. Panchayatnama was prepared on the spot, afterwards the dead body was sent to mortuary. The dead body was kept in mortuary for 72 hours. The identification of the dead body could not be made as no-one came forward to claim the dead body, therefore, the dead body of unknown person was cremated after 72 hours as per Hindu Rites and Rituals. PW-8 is witness of Pachayatnamas (Ex.P14 and Ex.P15).
PW-9 Rajkumar corroborated the testimony of PW-1 Daudayal Sharma.
PW-10 Deepchand deposed that on 13.04.2013 he was posted as constable in police station Mansarovar. On that day in case No. 165/2013 the police arrested accused Dharmendra and Ajay Tiwari. The arrest memo of Dharmendra is Ex.P16 and Ajay Tiwari is Ex.P17.
PW-11 Pravesh Kumar Yadav deposed that on 25.03.2013 he was posted as constable in police station Magaura Janpad, Mathura. On that day he received an information that a dead body of an unkonwn person is lying in the field near village Bachhgaon. He alongwith constable Ranjit, Ranveer Singh S.I. and Jeetendra Yadav S.I. proceeded to village Bachhgaon. In the field of Bhuraram, one dead body of an unknown person who was around 25 years of age was lying. The dead body was sent to mortuary. They could not trace out about the legal heirs of deceased, as a result of which after taking photographs the police cremated the unclaimed dead (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 04:14:50 PM) (9 of 16) [CRLA-861/2015] body after 72 hours as per Hindu Rites and Rituals. On 03.04.2013 the family members of deceased came and from the photographs identified the dead body as Ravikant and thereafter they came to know about the abduction of Ravikant (deceased) for ransom. PW-11 is witness of Ex.P14 and Ex.P15 PW-12 Dinesh Kumar deposed that on 26.03.2013 he was posted as sub-inspector in police station Mansarovar. On that day before him complainant Daudayal Sharma PW-1 submitted a written report (Ex.P1). Thereafter F.I.R. No.165/13 (Ex.P2) was registered.
PW-13 Indrajeet Singh deposed that on 14.04.2013 he was posted as constable in police station Mansarovar. On the direction of the SHO, on 14.04.2013 he went to Bharatpur Railway Station where from parking one motorbike bearing No. UP-80- VF-4759 was seized by Mr. Jagdish Rai, Sub Inspector. The seizure memo is Ex.P18 and site plan is Ex.P19.
PW-14 Jagdish Rai deposed that on 26.03.2013 he was posted as sub-inspector at police station Mansarovar. He was handed over investigation of F.I.R. case No. 165/2013 registered under section 364A IPC. He recorded the statement of complainant Daudayal under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which is Ex.D2. PW-14 is witness of EX.P21 to Ex.P27. For further investigation the file was handed over to Shri Shivratan Godara. PW-14 is witness of recovery memo motorcycle (Ex.P18), crime details form (Ex.P19) and inspection report (Ex.P28).
(Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 04:14:50 PM)
(10 of 16) [CRLA-861/2015] PW-15 V.J.John deposed that he had his own house No. 21/213 Kaveri Path, Mansarovar. He resides on the upper floor of the house. He used to give two rooms and one kitchen portion on rent. On 17.02.2013 three boys came to him and they offered to take the said portion on rent. These three boys stated themselves to be students and also doing some private job. One boy told his name as Ravikant Sharma, second as Manoj and third as Rahul Mudgal. Along with these three boys, there were two more boys. They stated their names as Vinod Choudhary and Neeraj. He let-out ground floor portion on rent of Rs. 7500/- per month. He took advance amount for one month. On 24.03.2013 in the evening when he came to his house, he saw some police personnel and was told that Ravikant Sharma who used to reside in his house, has been kidnapped for ransom. The boys who were residing on rent were also having a motorbike of UP number. After some time, Rahul who is the brother of Ravikant (deceased) told that Ravikant has been murdered.
PW-16 Devendra Kumar is witness of arrest memo (Ex.P16) of accused Dharmendra and arrest memo (Ex.P17) of accused Ajay Tiwari. On C to D portion, there is his signature. PW-16 is witness of site plan Ex.P19, and Ex.P28.
PW-18 Rahul Sharma, who is son of
complainant, has corroborated the testimony of
Daudayal Sharma (PW1).
In the present case, the learned trial
court framed charges against the accused appellants (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 04:14:50 PM) (11 of 16) [CRLA-861/2015] for the offences under sections 364A, 302/34, 201/34 and 120B IPC. Regarding the charge of offence under section 364A IPC, the prosecution must prove the following ingredients:-
(1) the accused must have kidnapped, abducted or detained any person;
(2) He must have kept such person under custody or detention; and (3) Kidnapping, abduction or detention must have been for ransom. To pay a ransom, in the ordinary sense to pay the price on demand for ransom. This would show that the demand has to be communicated.
The prosecution case is based on the testimony of complainant Daudayal (PW1), Manoj Kumar (PW2), Bijendra (PW4) and Rajkumar (PW9). These witnesses deposed that the accused made telephonic calls to the complainant and told that his son is in their custody and further if arrangement of amount is not made they would commit murder of his son.
PW15-V.J. John deposed that in his house No.21/213, Kaveri Path, Mansarovar, Ravikant Sharma, Manoj (PW2), Rahul Mudgal (PW3) and two other boys Vinod Choudhary and Neeraj were living as tenants. PW2-Manoj Kumar, PW3-Rahul Mudgal and PW9-Rajkumar deposed that on 24.03.2013 Dheeraj went to his village and Manoj (PW2) dropped him at the bus- stand. Prosecution has succeeded in establishing the fact that in between 24.03.2013 to 26.03.2013 Dheeraj was present in Bharatpur. PW3-Rahul Mudgal deposed that on 24.03.2013 Ravikant's brother and Rahul came to their place and on the same day in the (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 04:14:50 PM) (12 of 16) [CRLA-861/2015] morning both Ravikant and Vinod went together on motorbike. PW2-Manoj Kumar deposed that on 24.03.2013 at 2:38 AM Vinod Solanki came alone. He asked about Ravi. Vinod Solanki replied that Ravi has gone to his friends and had taken his motorbike. PW2-Manoj Kumar further deposed that arrest memo (Ex.P3) of accused Vinod Solanki was also prepared before him and arrest memo (Ex.P4) of Dheeraj was prepared before him. One black colour bag was seized and one bank ATM card, three railway tickets, cheque book of Axis Bank, Bank Card, two ATM slips, one small purse, Rs.17,000/- in cash, one blue colour trouser, one shirt, one laptop, one Nokia handset, one Samsung Cell were seized and on personal search of Vinod Solanki Rs.54,000/- vide seizure memo (Ex.P5) were recovered and on the same day two SIM cards of Airtel and one SIM of Aircel, two fake PAN cards of Amit Kumar and Rs.46,000/- vide seizure memo (Ex.P6) were recovered and on the same day clothes of deceased Ravikant were recovered vide recovery memo (Ex.P7). On the information and disclosure, at the instance of accused Vinod Solanki and Dheeraj, site map (Ex.P9) was prepared where the deceased was kept by them in custody for ransom. PW3-Rahul Mudgal corroborated the testimony of PW2- Manoj Kumar. PW3-Rahul Mudgal in cross-examination further deposed that one ATM card of Axis Bank of Ravikant (now deceased) was recovered from Dheeraj. PW19-Shivratan Godara, I.O. of the case deposed that at the instance of accused Vinod Solanki, motorbike was recovered from the parking stand of Bharatpur (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 04:14:50 PM) (13 of 16) [CRLA-861/2015] railway station vide Ex.P40 and vide Ex.P41 key of motorbike was recovered from Dheeraj @ Rikki. Ex.P42 is letter written to the Manager of Axis Bank, Jaipur, whereby the statement of bank account of Ravikant was obtained and the details of fake account of the Axis Bank in the name of Chandra Shekhar were recovered from Vinod Solanki and the fake bank statement of account of Axis Bank in the name of Amit Kumar was recovered from Dheeraj Kumar vide Ex.P48.
PW1-Daudayal Sharma complainant deposed that there was threat to give amount of ransom. ATM card recovered from accused Dheeraj clearly establishes the fact that the amount was withdrawn after the death of Ravikant.
On scrutinizing the evidence of PW1- Daudayal Sharma, PW2-Manoj Kumar, PW3-Rahul Mudgal and PW9-Rajkumar, it is established that accused appellants abducted Ravikant for ransom. Accused Vinod took him on motorbike. Thus, accused Vinod Solanki was lastly seen with deceased Ravikant Sharma. The prosecution has proved that the accused appellants have committed the offence of abduction for ransom.
The accused appellants were also tried for other charges under section 302 read with section 34 IPC. The offence of abduction for ransom and murder are two different offences. From the testimony of PW2-Manoj Kumar, PW3-Rahul Mudgal, PW15-V.J. John- landlord of house and PW18-Rahul Sharma, it is established that accused appellants Vinod Solanki (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 04:14:50 PM) (14 of 16) [CRLA-861/2015] and Dheeraj were living in house No. 21/213, Kaveri Path, Mansarovar along-with deceased Ravikant Sharma and both Vinod and Ravikant went on a motorbike. Thereafter, Ravikant did not return. During investigation, vide memo Ex.P5, cellphone of deceased Ravikant and Rs.54,000/- in cash were recovered from accused Vinod Solanki and vide Ex.P6, ATM slip and cash amounting to Rs.20,000/- were recovered from accused Dheeraj. The prosecution has proved that the accused appellants have committed the murder of deceased Ravikant with common intention. Both the accused hatched the conspiracy and abducted and kept Ravikant (now deceased) in detention for ransom.
Complainant PW1-Daudayal Sharma has identified accused appellants in the Court. In the attending circumstances and corroborative statements, the Court identification itself is a good identification.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in Motilal Yadav Vs. State of Bihar, (2015) 2 Supreme Court Cases 647 in para Nos. 11,12 and 13 has held ad-infra:-
"11. The evidence as to the identity of a person is admissible under Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In Ravi Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, this Court has opined in paragraph 35 as follows: (SCC p.305) "35.... The court identification itself is a good identification in the eye of the law. It is not always necessary that it must be preceded by the test identification parade. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of a given case. In one case, it (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 04:14:50 PM) (15 of 16) [CRLA-861/2015] may not even be necessary to hold the test identification parade while in the other, it may be essential to do so. Thus, no straitjacket formula can be stated in this regard."
12. In the case of R. Shaji v. State of Kerala, regarding the evidential value of the test identification parade, this Court has stated in paragraph 58 as under: (SCC p.287) "58.... The identification parade is conducted by the police. The actual evidence regarding identification is that which is given by the witness in court. A test identification parade cannot be claimed by an accused as a matter of right. Mere identification of an accused in a test identification parade is only a circumstance corroborative of the identification of the accused in court. ...."
13. In Ashok Debbarma alias Achak Debbarma v. State of Tripura, this Court has made following observations in para 20 which are reproduced below: (SCC pp.758-59)"
"20..... The primary object of the test identification parade is to enable the witnesses to identify the persons involved in the commission of offence(s) if the offenders are not personally known to the witnesses. The whole object behind the test identification parade is really to find whether or not the suspect is the real offender. In Kanta Prasad v. Delhi Admn.[9], this Court stated that the failure to hold the test identification parade does not make the evidence of identification at the trial inadmissible. ...."
In view of above, we find that the findings of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court that the prosecution has proved that the accused appellants have committed the (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 04:14:50 PM) (16 of 16) [CRLA-861/2015] offence of abduction for ransom and murder by adducing cogent and reliable evidence, beyond all reasonable doubt warrant no interference.
In the result, the criminal appeal filed by the accused appellants is bereft of merit and accordingly stand dismissed. The Judgment of conviction and sentence dated
14.7.2015 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Jaipur Metropolitan in Sessions Case No. 10/2013, State of Rajasthan Vs. Vinod Solanki and Ors, is maintained.
(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR)J. (SABINA)J.
NARENDRA KUMAR SHARMA/
(Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 04:14:50 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)