Patna High Court
Kari Mian @ Md. Kari Mian vs The State Of Bihar on 8 August, 2012
Author: Amaresh Kumar Lal
Bench: Shyam Kishore Sharma, Amaresh Kumar Lal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.478 of 2005
===========================================================
1. Upendra Patel @ Upendra Rout s/o Late Daroga Raut
2. Polis Raut s/o Rama Raut
Both resident of village Dubaulia, P.S. Ramgarhwa, P.S. + District East
Champaran
.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
State Of Bihar
.... .... Respondent/s
with
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 549 of 2005
===========================================================
Udai Chand Thakur s/o Late Ram Awadh Thakur, resident of village Sheopur Birta,
P.S. Ramgarhwa, District- East Champaran.
.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
State Of Bihar
.... .... Respondent/s
with
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 859 of 2007
===========================================================
Rabindra Patel son of Late Daroga Raut resident of Dubwaliya, P.S. Ramgarwa,
District East Champaran.
.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
State Of Bihar
.... .... Respondent/s
with
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 922 of 2011
===========================================================
Kari Mian @ Md. Kari Mian S/O Late Musa Mian Resident Of Village- Piparpati,
Police Station- Ramgarhawa, District- East Champaran
.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
.... .... Respondent/s
===========================================================
[Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
21.6.2005and 23.6.2005 respectively passed by Sri Sanjay Kumar, learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Motihari in Sessions Trial No. 442 of 2004/20 of 2005, judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 3.4.2007 and 7.4.2007 passed by Sri Raj Kishore Singh, learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-II, East Champaran, Motihari in Sessions Trial No. 343 of 2005/110 of Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.478 of 2005 dt.08-08-2012 2 2005 and judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.8.2011 and 23.8.2011 respectively passed by Sri Ram Pukar Yadav, learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Motihari in Sessions Trial No. 718 of 2006] Appearance :
(In CR. APP (DB) No. 478 of 2005) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ansul, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ashwini Kumar Sinha, APP For the informant Mr. Girish Chandra Sharma, APP (In CR. APP (DB) No. 549 of 2005) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ram Adya Singh, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ashwini Kumar Sinha, APP For the informant Mr. Girish Chandra Sharma, APP (In CR. APP (DB) No. 859 of 2007) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Pramod Ranjan, Adv For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ashwini Kumar Sinha, APP For the informant Mr. Girish Chandra Sharma, APP (In CR. APP (DB) No. 922 of 2011) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Arjun Prasad, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ashwini Kumar Sinha, APP For the informant Mr. Girish Chandra Sharma, APP ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL) Date: 08-08-2012 Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 478 of 2005 has been filed on behalf of Upendra Patel @ Upendra Rout and Polis Raut and Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 549 of 2005 has been filed on behalf of Udai Chand Thakur against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.6.2005 and 23.6.2005 respectively passed by learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Motihari in Sessions Trial No. 442 of 2004/20 of 2005 by which the appellants of both these appeals have been convicted and Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.478 of 2005 dt.08-08-2012 3 sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life each under Section 364(A) and 120 (B) IPC. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
2. Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 859 of 2007 has been filed on behalf of Rabindra Patel against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 3.4.2007 and 7.4.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-II, East Champaran, Motihari in Sessions Trial No. 343 of 2005/110 of 2005 by which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life each under Section 364(A)/34 and 120(B) IPC. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
3. Cr. Appeal No. 922 of 2011 has been filed on behalf of Kari Mian @ Md. Kari Mian against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.8.2011 and 23.8.2011 respectively passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari in Sessions Trial No. 718 of 2006 by which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- under Section 364 (A) and 120 B IPC. and in default of payment of fine further simple imprisonment for two years.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.478 of 2005 dt.08-08-2012 4
4. Since all these appeals arise out of Ramgarhawa P. S. Case No. 62 of 2003, G. R. No. 312 of 2003, as such all these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
5. According to fard beyan of Ajay Kumar Pandey given to office-in-charge of Ramgarhawa police station on 29.5.2003 at 9.30 a.m., the prosecution case, in brief, is that Chandan Kumar aged about 10 years was the son of his elder brother Umakant Pandey. Chandan was studying at Raipur (Chhatisgarh) while residing with his father. The father of Chandan Kumar and the members of his family had gone to his village at Shivpur Brita, police Station Ramgarhawa to attend the marriage of his younger brother. On 28.5.2003 at about 6 P.M. Chandan was playing with other children in the field of Ramtapasya Sah. Chandan did not return till 7 pm. Therefore, the informant and the members of his family started searching him but he could not be found. On the following morning they enquired about Chandan from his younger brother Gunjan aged about 7 years as he was also playing with him. Gunjan Kumar disclosed that Uday Chand Thakur (appellant) had taken Chandan in the previous Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.478 of 2005 dt.08-08-2012 5 evening. Thereafter, Uday Chand Thakur (appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 549/2005) was called in and on interrogation he disclosed that he handed over Chandan (victim) to Rabindra Patel (appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 859/2007) near the brick kiln of Parma Singh in the temptation of money. Rabindra Patel was associated with notorious criminal Jai Mangal Patel. He further disclosed that the amount received by the was to be divided into two shares, half was to be retained by Jai Mangal Patel and half was to be shared by him (Udai Chand Thakur) and Ravindra Kumar. It has further been alleged that all the accused persons along with others kidnapped his nephew for ranson.
6. On the basis of said fard beyan, the office-in-charge of Ramgarhawa drew formal FIR and registered Ramgarhwa P. S. Case No. 62 of 2003 under Section 364(A)/34 IPC against Udai Chand Thakur, Rabindra Thakur and Jai Mangal Patel. After investigation Charge-sheet was submitted against Upendra Patel and Polis Rout (appellant in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 478 of 2005) and Udai Chand Thakur (appellant in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 549 of 2005) under Sections 364 A and 120 (B)/34 IPC. Further investigation was kept pending against the accused Ravindra Patel, Kari Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.478 of 2005 dt.08-08-2012 6 Mian, Surendra Sah and Ashok Kumar Sinha. Cognizance was taken against the persons against whom charge-sheet had been submitted. Charges were framed against them for offence punishable under Section 364(A), 120(B)/34, 364 and 302/34 IPC to which they denied and claimed to be tried. After trial they have been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life each under Sections 364 (A) and 120(B) IPC as aforesaid.
7. Later on, supplementary charge-sheet was submitted on 28.11.2003 against the accused Rabindra Patel, Jaimangal Patel and Kari Mian keeping investigation pending of co-accused Surendra Sah and Ashok Kumar Sinha. The case of Jai Mangal Patel and Kari Mian was split up from the record and accordingly the case was committed to the court of sessions. Charges for the offence punishable under Sections 364(A)/34 and 120(B)/34 were framed against the accused Rabindra Patel in Sessions Trial No. 343 of 2005 to which he denied and claimed to be tried. After the trial Rabindra Patel was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life each under Section 364(A)/34 and 120 (B) IPC as aforesaid.
8. Similarly, charges were framed Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.478 of 2005 dt.08-08-2012 7 against the accused Kari Mian for the offence punishable under Sections 364(A) and 120 (B) IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried on 8.12.2006 in Sessions Trial No. 718 of 2006. After trial Kari Mian @ Md. Kari Mian has been convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.25000/- for committing offence punishable under Sections 364(A) and 120(B) IPC and in default of payment of fine to serve further simple imprisonment for two years as aforesaid.
9. The defence of the accused is of innocence and to have been falsely implicated in this case.
10. This Court is required to reappraise the evidence as to whether the prosecution has been able to substantiate its charge against the appellants beyond reasonable doubts or not ?
11. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that there is delay in lodging the FIR. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 28.5.2003 at 6 p.m., whereas, the fard beyan has been made on 29.5.2005 at 9.30 a.m. at the residence of the informant and there is no explanation for such delay. Polis Rout has not Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.478 of 2005 dt.08-08-2012 8 been named in the FIR although the FIR was lodged after full thought in the morning. On the basis of confessional statement of accused Udai Chand Thakur other accused cannot be held guilty on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused. No recovery has been made as such the other accused cannot be held guilty for the statement/confession made by Udai Chand Thakur. The appellant Polis Rout is the uncle of Upendra Rout, the brother of Polis Rout had lodged Ramgarhwa P.S. Case No. 125 of 2001 for the offence under Section 307 IPC against Ram Chandra Pandey, father of P.W. 2 Brajkishore Pandey. Daroga Rout, father of Upendra Rout (appellant no. 1) was murdered in the year 2001 for which Ramgarhwa P.S. Case No. 134 of 2001 was registered on the fard beyan of Polis Rout (appellant no. 2) in which the informant Ajay Kumar Pandey (P.W. 7) was named as one of the accused. In S. Tr. No. 442/2004 eight witnesses have been examined out of whom P.W. 7 is the informant, P. W. 5 Umakant Pandey is the brother of the informant and father of the victim, P.W. 3 Gunjan Kumar is the brother of the victim. They are interested witnesses. There is no independent witness on the point of confession of co-accused Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.478 of 2005 dt.08-08-2012 9 Udai Chand Thakur.
It has been further submitted that the dead body of victim has not been found as such the victim boy cannot be said to be dead. There is no cogent evidence for presuming that Chandan, the victim boy has been killed by the accused or any other person. It has been submitted that due to enmity Chandan has been caused to disappear somewhere by his father and the accused have been falsely implicated.
12. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that admittedly some of the witnesses are interested but on this ground their evidence cannot be discarded. It is admitted fact that victim boy has not been recovered nor his dead body has been recovered, but there is evidence on the record to prove that the victim has been kidnapped by the accused Udai Chand Thakur while he was playing in the field with other children.
13. In all aforesaid Sessions trial the prosecution evidence are almost the same. In Sessions Trial No. 442 of 2004 prosecution has examined following witnesses: P. W. 1 Razaque Mian, P.W. 2 Brij Kishore Pandey, P. W. 3 Gunjan Pandey, P. W. 4 Gajendra Thakur, P. W. 5 Umakant Pandey, P. W. 6 Satish Pandey, P. W. 7 Ajay Kumar Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.478 of 2005 dt.08-08-2012 10 Pandey and P. W. 8 Krishna Kant Pandey.
14. P. W. 1 has stated that when he was retuning from his field in the evening he saw accused Udai Chand Thakur, Polis Rout, Rabindra Rout and Upendra Rout sitting near a brick kiln. Chandan (victim) was also sitting there. He remained in his house in the night and in the morning he came to know that Chandan did not return to his house. Ajay Pandey, the uncle of Chandan was making query from Udai Chand Thakur. He told that he handed over Chandan to Rabindra, Polis and Upendra Rout. Rabindra and Upendra are also called as Rabindra Patel @ Rabindra Rout and Upendra Patel @ Upendra Rout respectively. He has further stated that Udai Chand Thakur told that Chandan was kidnapped for ransom. He has identified Uday, Polis and Rabindra. In his cross-examination, he has stated that distance between the house of Ajay Pandey and his house is 5 to 6 laggi. He has also stated that there were 12 to 14 workers on the brick kiln. He does not know the name of those 12 to 14 persons as they were outsider. He has further stated that Chandan and the accused were sitting at a distance of 7 to 8 cubits from the way from which he was crossing. He did not make any query from Chandan. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.478 of 2005 dt.08-08-2012 11 In paragraph 22 he has stated that when he reached his home he came to know that Chandan was searched by the members of the house. He did not go to the parents of Chandan in that night. In the morning Udai Chand Thakur was enquired into regarding whereabouts of Chandan. In paragraph 35 he has stated that he does not know whether the father of Rabindra Patel was murdered in 2001 and Ajay Pandey was one of the accused in that case.
This witness has also been examined as P. W. 3 in Sessions Trial No. 343 of 2005 in which he has stated that he returned to his house at 8 pm. on the next date he came to know that Chandan was not in his house. He went to the house of the informant and narrated about the occurrence to the informant. Thereafter, Udai Chand Thakur was called by the informant who made query from Udai Chand Thakur about Chandan. Udai Chand Thakur told that he handed over Chandan to Rabindra Rout and Polis Rout and Upendra Rout for ransom.
This witness has also been examined as P. W. 1 in Sessions Trial No. 718 of 2006 in which he has stated that in the evening he had gone to the brick kiln of Parma Patel and saw that Chandan (Victim) was sitting with Udai Chand Thakur, Polis Rout, Upendra Rout and Rabindra Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.478 of 2005 dt.08-08-2012 12 Rout (appellants). Since Udai Chand Thakur had access to the house of the informant as such he did not make any query. Later on, he came to know that Chandan was kidnapped and he has not been traced till the date of deposition.
It appears from the evidence of this
witness that he has made variation in his
statement on three different occasions. In
Sessions Trial No. 442 of 2004 he has stated that he was crossing through the road near brick kiln which was 8 to 9 cubits from rasta. In the morning he went to the house of the informant and found that Udai Chand Thakur has been held up and queries are being made by the informant regarding the whereabouts of Chandan, whereas, in Session Trial No. 343 of 2005 he has stated that he went to the house of the informant in the morning and interrogation was made from Udai Chand Thakur and he confessed his guilt of kidnapping Chandan and handed over Chandan to other accused but no such statement was made in Sessions Trial No. 718 of 2006 in which he has stated that he did not make any query from Udai Chand Thakur as he had access to Uma Pandey, father of victim and brother of the informant.
15. P. W. 2 Brij Kishore Pandey has Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.478 of 2005 dt.08-08-2012 13 stated in the evening at about 6 pm. he was returning from his field and saw that Uday Chand Thakur was taking Chandan Kumar towards the brick kiln of Parma Singh. On the next morning Udai Chand Thakur confessed before the co-villagers that he took away Chandan and handed him over to other accused Rabindra and Upendra Patel and Polis Rout. Udai Chand Thakur also stated that they sent Chandan to Jaimangal and that has been done for getting ransom. He has also stated that since Ajay Pandey was an accused in the murder of the father of Rabindra and Upendra and Ajay Pandey was acquitted as such Chandan, the nephew of Ajay Pandey has been kidnapped. In his cross- examination, he has stated that he has also stated before the police that he saw Udai Chand Thakur and Chandan together near the brick kiln of Parma Singh. He has not made any statement before the police that he had also seen Rabindra patel, Polis Patel and Upendra Rout near the brick kiln of Parma Singh. He has also stated that Udai Chand Thakur is a barber and he used to do his professional work. At the time of occurrence he was residing at Raxaul and studying there. He had come to the village 10 to 12 days ago of the occurrence from Raxaul.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.478 of 2005 dt.08-08-2012 14 This witness has been examined as P. W. 4 in Sessions Trial No. 343 of 2005 where he has stated that he had seen Udai Chand Thakur taking Chandan towards brick kiln. He has also stated that he had also seen Rabindra, Upendra and Polis Patel near brick kiln. The victim Chandan has not been found.
This witness has also been examined as P. W. 2 in Sessions Trial No. 718 of 2006 where he has stated that on 28.5.2003 at 6 p.m. he was returning towards his house from his field. In the way he had seen Uday Chand Thakur, Polis Patel, Rabindra Patel and Chandan Kumar was in the middle of them. They have kidnapped Chandan. In this case trial has been made against Kari Mian and he was present in the dock of the Court. He has stated that he did not see him as he has never seen him before that date.
The evidence of this witness appears to be convincing to the extent that he had seen Udai Chand Thakur taking Chandan towards the brick kiln where other accused were present.
16. P. W. 3 Gunjan Kumar is aged about 10 and he is the younger brother of Chandan. He has stated that in the evening he, his brother and other children were playing in the field. The Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.478 of 2005 dt.08-08-2012 15 accused Udai Chand Thakur came there and asked his brother Chandan to walk, who went with him. His brother did not return in the night. This fact was narrated by him to his uncle Ajay (informant). In the morning Udai Chand Thakur (appellant) was brought to his Darwaja where he told that he handed over Chandan to Rabindra Patel. He has identified Udai Chand Thakur. Chandan did not return.
This witness has been examined as P. W. 5 in Sessions Trial No. 343 of 2005 where he has stated the same thing. Only variation is that he has stated that after returning from the playground he slept and in the morning he informed about the occurrence to his uncle (informant).
He has also been examined as P. W. 8 in Sessions Trial No. 718 of 2006 where he has stated that he has never seen Kari Mian prior to deposition. His evidence also appears to be convincing.
17. P. W. 4 Gajendra Thakur has stated that on the date and time of the occurrence he was returning from the market and saw that Chandan, Gunjan and other children were playing in the field. Again he saw Udai Chand Thakur was Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.478 of 2005 dt.08-08-2012 16 going with Chandan Kumar towards western side. Chandan did not return. In the morning he told members of the family of Chandan that in the evening he had seen Chandan going with Udai Chand Thakur. Udai Chand Thakur was called and he stated that he handed over Chandan to Rabindra, Polis and Upendra Patel. He has further stated that Chandan was handed over to Jai Mangal. He has identified all accused of that case.
This witness has been examined as P. W. 2 in Sessions Trial No. 343 of 2005 where also he has stated that on the date and time he saw that Chandan was playing in the field with other children. In the meantime Udai Chand Thakur took away Chandan with him towards West since that date Chandan had not returned to his house in spite of search. This witness has been examined as P. W. 3 in Sessions Trial No. 718 of 2006 where also he has stated the same fact that he has never seen the accused Kari Mian present in the Court prior to the date of deposition.
His evidence also appears to be natural and convincing.
18. P. W. 5 is the father of victim Chandan Kumar. He has stated that he had gone to his village from Chhatisgarh on the occasion of Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.478 of 2005 dt.08-08-2012 17 marriage of his younger brother. After marriage he returned to Raipur leaving his children and wife at his house. On 29.5.2003 he got telephonic information that Chandan was kidnapped on 28.5.2003 at 6 pm. while he was playing in the field with other children. Chandan was taken by Udai Chand Thakur to the brick kiln and handed him over to co-accused Rabindra Patel, Polis Patel, Upendra Patel, Kari Mian and Jaimangal Patel. Polis Patel is also known as Polis Rout. Even after search his son could not been found. One day got telephonic message asking him to pay ransom of Rs.10 lakh for release of Chandan. On great persuasion he disclosed his name as Kari Mian. He has also admitted that Ajay Pandey (informant) was suspected for causing the death of father of accused Rabindra Patel but after investigation police did not find him guilty. Due to this reason his son might have been kidnapped by these appellants. He has made his statement at great length. He has stated that he has no knowledge as to whether a case was instituted against his brother Ajay in 2001 under Section 307 IPC by Jamadar Rout. He also does not know as to whether Rajak Mian (P.W. 1) was an accused in that case.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.478 of 2005 dt.08-08-2012 18 This witness has been examined as P. W. 6 in Sessions Trial No. 343 of 2005. He has also stated the same fact. Telephone caller disclosed his name as Kari Mian and at his instance he went to meet Kari Mian and asked him to reach near graveyard. Accordingly, he went there but Kari Mian or his men did not make them available. At that place Kari Mian informed on telephone that Rabindra Patel and others had killed his son. This fact has been narrated by this witness to the Investigating Officer.
This witness has also been examined as P. W. 5 in Sessions Trial No. 718 of 2006 where the trial of Kari Mian has been held. In his deposition he has stated that he does not identify Kari Mian who was present in the Court.
The evidence of this witness does not inspire confidence. In Sessions Trial No. 442 of 2004 he has stated that in para 9 that during search of his son he had gone to the accused Jai Mangal Patel and Kari Mian. But in the court he has not identified Kari Mian in the Court and also in the view the evidence of P. W. 7 Manmohan Prasad who has stated that the demand of ransom was made by mobile but he has not taken the print out of that mobile. During Investigation nothing Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.478 of 2005 dt.08-08-2012 19 has been recovered from Kari Mian. The evidence of this witness is not helpful to the prosecution.
19. P. W. 6 Satish Pandey has stated that on the date and time of occurrence he saw Chandan Kumar, Gunjan Kumar and Ranjan Kumar playing in the field with other children. Chandan did not return to his house. Search was made during night but he was not found. In the morning on query Gunjan (P.W. 3) stated that Udai Chand Thakur had enticed away Chandan towards the brick kiln of Parma Singh. Thereafter, he and others caught hold of Udai Chand Thakur and brought to Darwaja where Udai Chand Thakur confessed that he took Chandan to the brick kiln of Parma Singh and handed him over to Rabindra Patel and Rabindra Patel took Chandan to Nepal and handed over to Jai Mangal. Udai Chand Thakur also confessed that in the temptation of money, this plan was made 10 days prior to the occurrence. During cross- examination he has denied that Jamadar Raut had instituted a case under Section 307 IPC against his father. In para 8 he has also admitted that he did not see Chandan playing in the field at 5 pm. with children. The fact of playing in the field was told by Gunjan. He has also stated that Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.478 of 2005 dt.08-08-2012 20 Udai Chand Thakur was taken to Darwaja of Ajay Pandey where 150 persons had assembled and before them Udai Chand Thakur has confessed his guilt.
This witness has been examined as P. W. 1 in Sessions Trial No. 343 of 2005 where he has stated that about 6.30-7.00 P.M. he went to brick kiln of Parma Singh where Udai Chand Thakur, Polis Rout, Upendra Rout and Ravindra Rout were sitting with Chandan Kumar. He did not make any query as Udai Chand Thakur had access to Uma Pandey, father of Chandan Kumar.
He has also been examined as P. W. 6 in Sessions Trial No. 718 of 2006 where he has deposed that he did not see Kari Mian earlier.
The evidence of this witness does not inspire confidence as P. W. 6 in Sessions Trial No. 442 of 2004 he has stated in examination-in- Chief that he saw the victim and other children playing in the field whereas in his cross- examination he has stated that he did not see rather this fact was narrated by Gunjan (brother of the victim) as such he appears to be hearsay witness.
20. P. W. 7 Ajay Kumar Pandey is the informant and the uncle of the victim. He has stated that on the date and time of occurrence Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.478 of 2005 dt.08-08-2012 21 Chandan Kumar (victim), Gunjan Kumar (P.W. 3), Ranjan Kumar (not examined) and other children were playing in the field. Chandan Kumar did not return till 8 pm. thereafter, he was searched by the members of his family he could not be traced out by 11 pm. They returned to the house. In the morning on query Gunjan Kumar stated that the co- villager Udai Chand Thakur had taken Chandan in the evening. Thereafter, Udai Chand Thakur was called and on query he stated and confessed that in the temptation of money he handed over Chandan to accused Rabindra Patel near brick kiln of Parma Singh. He also stated that Rabindra Patel would hand over Chandan to Jaimangal. The amount of ransom would be divided in two parts. Half would be taken by Jaimangal and rest half would be distributed among other accused. This planning was made 10 to 12 days prior to the occurrence. He has further stated that on information office- in-charge of Ramgarhwa Police Station came there and Officer-in-Charge Manmohan Prasad (not examined) had taken his statement. He has identified his statement as Ext. 1. After institution of FIR Razaque Mian (PW. 1), Brij Kishore Pandey (P.w. 2) told him that accused Polis Rout, Upendra Patel, Rabindra Patel, Udai Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.478 of 2005 dt.08-08-2012 22 Chand Thakur were seen sitting among them, thereafter Chandan did not return. There is rumour in the village that the accused killed Chandan.
He has also been examined as P. W. 7 in Sessions Trial No. 343 of 2005 in which he has also stated the same fact.
He has also been examined as P.W. 4 in Sessions Trial No. 718 of 2006. He has not identified the accused Kari Mian present in the Court.
The evidence of this witness has not been helpful to the prosecution in case of trial against Kari Mian.
21. P. W. 8 Krishna Kant Pandey is Investigating Officer of this Case. He has stated that the investigation of Ramgarhwa P.S. Case No. 63 of 2003 was entrusted to him on 29.5.2003. On the same date at about 12 O'clock he went to village Ahiloriya Tola Shivpur Brita and reached there at 12.30 PM. He took the restatement of the informant and also statement of co-villagers and inspected the place of occurrence. The place of occurrence is parati land of Sheosagar Sah and Himachal Pandey where the victim Chandan was playing with his brother Gunjan (P.W. 3) and Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.478 of 2005 dt.08-08-2012 23 cousin Ranjan (not examined) and other children of the village. He was told that Chandan was kidnapped from that place. The place is at a distance of about 60 yards in north western side of the house of the informant. After inspection of the place of occurrence and taking the statement of witnesses Satish Pandey (P.W. 6), Gunjan Kumar (P.W. 3), Brij Kishore Pandey (P.W.
2), Tajmul Mian and Gajendra Thakur (not examined) arrested Udai Chand Thakur took his statement who accepted his guilt. During raid for recovery of Chandan Kumar he came to know that Rabindra Patel, Kari Mian and Polis Rout have been seen with Chandan Kumar and they are changing the place of aboard. On 26.7.2003 he came to know that Chandan was murdered. He also got the statement of Kari Mian written by Manmohan Prasad, Officer-in-Charge. He has identified fard beyan (Ext. 1), Formal FIR (Ext. 1/A), paragraph 14 to 101 of the case-diary (Ext. 2). After investigation Charge-sheet was submitted. In his cross-examination he has stated that co-villagers have told that Chandan was seen with Kari Mian, Rabindra Patel and Jaimangal Patel but he has not mentioned the name of those co-villagers. Even after getting information on Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.478 of 2005 dt.08-08-2012 24 26.7.2003 that the victim was murdered he could not find the dead body of the victim. He did not take step for addition of section 302 in the FIR. Kari Mian was arrested in another case and was remanded in this case and he accepted his indulgence in this case. His statement was recorded by the Officer-in-Charge but he did not file any petition before the Magistrate for recording his statement. He has stated that Razaque Mian (P.W. 1) has stated before him that on 28.5.2003 Chandan was seen with the accused on the brick kiln.
He has also been examined as P. W. 8 in Sessions Trial No. 343 of 2005 in which he has also stated similar fact. He has also been examined as P. W. 9 in Sessions Trial No. 718 of 2006 and stated the same fact as stated earlier in the previous trial. In his cross-examination he has stated that during investigation he did not find anything against Kari Mian except the statement of witnesses. He has not mentioned the name of co-villager who had made statement regarding involvement of Kari Mian in the occurrence. Nothing was recovered from the possession of Kari Mian. He has further stated this fact that Kari Mian has been remanded in Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.478 of 2005 dt.08-08-2012 25 this case only on suspicion.
In Sessions Trial No. 718 of 2006 Manmohan Prasad has been examined as P. W. 7. he has stated that he was Officer-in-Charge on the date of occurrence and recorded the fardbeyan of informant on 29.5.2003 on the basis of which Ramgarhwa P. S. Case No. 62 of 2003 was instituted under Section 364(A)/34 IPC and he entrusted the investigation of the case to S. I. K. K. Pandey (P.W. 9) of this case. As he did not investigate the case, he has no knowledge as to whether test identification parade has been held or not. The evidence of this witness is also not helpful to the prosecution.
22. In Sessions Trial No. 442/2004 two witnesses have been examined on behalf of the accused-DW 1 Tuntun Singh and DW 2 Shishupal, who are formal witnesses. D. W. 1 has proved formal FIR of Ramgarhwa P.S. Case No. 125/2001 and its ferdbeyan as Exts. A and B. D. W. 2 has proved the fardbeyan and formal FIR of Ramgarhwa P. S. Case No. 134/2001 as Exts. B/1 and A/1 respectively. These documents have been filed to show the enmity between the informant and his witnesses on the one hand and the accused on the other.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.478 of 2005 dt.08-08-2012 26
23. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and after considering the evidence it appears that P. W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 4, P. W. 5 and P.W. 7 have supported the prosecution case so far Sessions Trial No,. 442 of 2004 and Sessions Trial No. 343 of 2005 are concerned. P. W. 2, P. W. 3, P. W. 5 and P.W. 7 are close relatives of the victim but their evidence cannot be discarded as they are interested witnesses. It is settled principle of law that the evidence of interested witnesses has to be scrutinized cautiously and carefully. It appears from the evidence of P.W. 2 that Udai Chand Thakur was seen taking Chandan Kumar towards brick kiln where Rabindra Patel, Upendra Patel and Polis Patel were present. He has also stated about the confession of Udai Chand Thakur. It appears that P. W. 3 Gunjan Kumar has also stated that Chandan Kumar was taken away by accused Udai Chand Thakur and thereafter Chandan Kumar never returned. Gajendra Thakur has also stated about the same fact. P. W. 5, P. W. 6 and P.W. 7 appear to be hearsay witness. P. W. 6 and P. W. 7 have supported confessional statement of Udai Chand Thakur who has stated before the co- villagers towards involvement of self and other Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.478 of 2005 dt.08-08-2012 27 accused in the occurrence. No recovery has been made on the confessional statement of the co- accused Udai Chand Thakur.
24. It appears from the evidence of witnesses that prosecution has been able to prove that Chandan Kumar, minor son of Uma Kant Pandey (P.w. 5) aged about 10 years was taken or enticed by the appellant Udai Chand Thakur without the consent of his guardian. It has come during the evidence that victim boy has been killed but the Investigating Officer has admitted that the dead body has not been recovered nor any witness has stated that the dead body has been found. In that view of the matter, charge under Section 364(A) IPC has not been proved. P. W. 5, father of the victim has stated about the telephonic call for ransom of Rs.10 Lakh from Kari Mian but during investigation neither the details of mobile call has been found out nor there is any evidence except the statement of P. W. 5 that ransom was also asked by Kari Mian. He has also stated that on call of Kari Mian he went to him. Kari Mian had also asked him to come on the particular place. He went there and appeared before Kari Main but in the Court he has refused to identify Kari Mian as an accused. Similarly, no other Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.478 of 2005 dt.08-08-2012 28 witness has identified him. The confessional statement of co-accused Udai Chand Thakur has led to no recovery as such his confessional statement will not be admissible against the co-accused, his statement at best can only extend to him.
25. We find that prosecution has not been able to substantiate its charge against the appellants Upendra Patel @ Upendra Rout, Polis Rout, Rabindra Patel, Kari Mian @ Md. Kari Mian for the offence punishable under Sections 364(A)/34 and 120(B) IPC beyond all reasonable doubts as such their conviction and sentence is not fit to be sustained and it is set aside. They are acquitted from the charge by giving them the benefit of doubt and they are also discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds.
26. There is material on the record to prove that the appellant Udai Chand Thakur (in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) NO. 549 of 2005) has committed offence punishable under Section 363 IPC. Accordingly, his sentence is modified to the period undergone in custody. The appellant Udai Chand Thakur is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.
27. In the result, Cr. Appeal (D.B.) Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.478 of 2005 dt.08-08-2012 29 No. 478 of 2005, Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 859 of 2007 and Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 922 of 2011 are allowed, and Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 549 of 2005 is dismissed with modification in conviction and sentence as aforesaid.
(Shyam Kishore Sharma, J) Patna High Court, Patna Dated the 8th of August 2012 (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J) N. A. F. R/Kanchan/-