Allahabad High Court
Narain Das Son Of Chhotelal And Naveen ... vs State Of U.P. on 6 April, 2007
Author: A.K. Roopanwal
Bench: Imtiyaz Murtaza, A.K. Roopanwal
JUDGMENT A.K. Roopanwal, J.
1. Both these appeals have been filed against the judgment and order dated 10.5.2005 passed by the Special Judge, Dacoity Affected Area, Jalaun at Orai in S.T. No. 07/99, State v. Virendra. Singh alias Veerey, S.T. No. 7A/99, State v. Kalloo alias Vasdeo and Ors. and S.T. No. 48/99, State v. Ashok Kumar, whereby appellants Narayan Das and Navin Kumar in Criminal Appeal No. 2046 of 2005 have been convicted under Section 364A, I.P.C. read with Section 120B, I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine further R.I. for six months and under Section 14 of Dacoity Affected Area Act sentenced to three years R.I. and appellant Virendra Singh alias Veera in Criminal Appeal No. 2696 of 2005 has been convicted under Section 364A, I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a. fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine further R.I. for six months and under Section 14 of Dacoity Affected Area Act sentenced to three years R.I.
2. The prosecution case as disclosed in the written report dated 29.10.98 lodged by Mata Prasad at P.S. Rampura and registered at Crime No. 198 of 1998 under Section 364A, I.P.C. and 12/14 of the Dacoity Affected Area Act is that on 5.10.1998 Anjani Kumar alias Lalji aged about 29 years, the son of the complainant was to go to see his brother-in-law at Village Gohad, District Bhind (M.P.). On that clay at about 7.00 a.m. accused Virendra Singh alias Veerey, son of Jaidev Singh alias Munshi Singh Bhadoria of Village Kanjhari came to the house of the complainant on a bullet motorcycle with Kalloo Yadav. Virendra Singh was known to accused Navin Soni and Narain Das of the village of the complainant. Virendra Singh said to the complainant that he was going to Gwalior and would leave Anjani Kumar at Gohad. He took away Anjani Kumar on his motorcycle along with his companion Kalloo. When nothing could be known about Anjani Kumar for several days, the complainant made search for him at Gohad and in other relations, but all went in vain. On 12.10.98, the complainant received a letter on the printed pad of Dacoit Nirbhay Singh Guzar and Munni Pandey through which a ransom of Rs. 7,51,101/- was demanded for the safe release of Anjani Kumar. On receiving this letter, the complainant believed that his son had been abducted by Virendra Singh alias Veerey and his companion for ransom.
3. In the F.I.R. it was specifically written by the complainant that Narain Das, Navin Kumar and complainant's brother Ram Adhar were present when Anjani Kumar was taken away by Virendra Singh alias Veerey.
4. The investigation of the case was taken up by S.I. Devi Prasad Dubey, the then S.O., P.S. Rampura. He prepared the memo of the letter sent by the Dacoits and handed over at the police station by the complainant and recorded the statements of the witnesses of this memo. He inspected the place of abduction on 30.10.98 and prepared the site plan. He also recorded the statements of Narain Das Soni and others and on the same day arrested the accused Virendra Kumar Bhadoria alias Veerey, who confessed that he had abducted Anjani Kumar for the sake of ransom. He also disclosed that Kalloo alias Nagendra Yadav resident of Husepura, Ashok Kumar s/o Chatri resident of Husepura, P.S. Kunthod, Munna Guzar resident of Rahtoli, P.S. Ajitmal, Rajjan Mehtar resident of Ajitmal, Nirbhay Guzar and Munni Pandey were also involved in the abduction. The I.O. recorded the statement of Navin Kumar Soni on 13.11.98 and remained in the search of Anjani Kumar and of the accused persons. On 3.1.1909 Anjani Kumar alias Lalji was released from the custody of the dacoits at about 5.30 p.m. during combing operations. The recovery memo of this release was prepared and later on Anjani Kumar was handed over to his father Mata Prasad Soni and its memo was also prepared.
5. After recovery of Anjani Kumar his medical examination was got clone and his statement was recorded on 10.1.1999. The statement of Anjani Kumar was also got recorded before the Judicial Magistrate Jalaun on 15.1.99. Later on investigation was transferred to Jamirul Hasan, who took charge as S.O. Rampura from S.I. Devi Prasad Dubey. This I.O. after concluding the investigation submitted four charge sheets, one against Virendraj Singh alias Veeray, other against Navin Kumar Soni, third against Kalloo alias Vasdeo alias Nagendra and Narain Das and fourth against absconders Nirbhay Singh, Basanti Pandey alias Kusma Devi alias Munni Pandey, Munna Guzar, Ashok Kumar and Rajjan Mehtar.
6. Accused Virendra Singh alias Veerey was charged under Section 364A and 12/14 of the Dacoity Affected Area Act by the Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area) Jalaun at Orai on 20.3.1999. Accused Navin, Kalloo and Narain Das were charged under Section 364A, 120B, I.P.C. and 12/14 of the Dacoity Affected Area Act by the Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area) Jalaun at Orai on 2.6.1999 and accused Ashok Kumar was charged under Section 364A read with Section 12/14 of the Dacoity Affected Area Act by the Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area) Jalaun at Orai on 4.5.2000. The case of other accused was separated as they did not put in appearance. It was marked as S.T. No. 48/99.
7. The prosecution, in order to prove the aforesaid charges examined P.W.-l Anjani Kumar alias Lalji (Kidnapped person), P.W.2, Mata Prasad (Complainant), P.W.-3 Head Constable Mahtab Singh, P.W.-4, S.I. Jameerul Hasan and P.W.-5, S.I. Devi Prasad Dubey.
8. P.W.-l Anjani Kumar alias Lalji stated that on 3.10.98 he was called by Narain Das Soni at his house. Narain Das Soni is his family uncle. He told to him that his cousin brother-in-law and father-in-law had met with an accident at Gohan. Then, he went to Rampura on motorcycle with Narain Das in order to see his father-in-law. This motorcycle was of Bhadoria JI. Later on he came to know that the full name of Bhadoria was Virendra Bhadoria. At Rampura, his father-in-law informed him about the accident of his brother-in-law Manish and also told that Manish was unconscious for the last about 15 days. Narain Das said to him that Bhadoria Ji was going to Gwalior and he should go to see Manish on his motorcycle. He refused and said that he would no to his house first and then would go to see Manish.
9. On 5.10.98 at 6.30 a.m., the appellant Navin came to him with Virendra Bhadoria and Kalloo. Navin said to him that Bhadoria and Kalloo were going to Gohan on a motorcycle and he should also go with them. It will save his expenses and time. At the same time, Narain Das also came there before whom he said that he would not go with Virendra Bhadoria and Kalloo as they were not known to him. Narain Das and Navin assured him that these persons were of their confidence and guaranteed that they would bring him back to his house. On their guarantee he became ready. He sat on the motorcycle of Bhadoria in the middle. Kalloo sat behind him. In Rampura, he took kerosene oil for the motorcycle from the house of his maternal uncle Jamuna Prasad Soni. From Rampura all reached at Bagra where they took breakfast. Kalloo stayed there and he accompanied Bhadoria on Bhind Road. Bhadoria stopped the vehicle near Medha Ghat before Umri Village. When he inquired from him as to why he had stopped the vehicle, he said that he had to ease himself. Bhadoria went to some distance in order to ease himself. He also eased himself. Thereafter, Bhadoria started the motorcycle, blew its horn and went away leaving him alone at that place. Immediately then four persons in police uniform appeared from the nearby bushes who inserted cloth in his mouth and took him into the jungle. He was brought in the gang of Dacoit Nirbhay Singh Guzar. They demanded Rs. 11,00,000/- as ransom from him. He showed his inability on the pretext of poorness. He was introduced to a lady, who was also present there. They said to him that he had been abducted. One of them said that he was Nirbhay Singh Guzar and the lady was Munni Pandey. He was tied in a chain. They got a letter for a ransom of Rs. 7,51,101/- written from somebody addressed to his father. They also got something written from him on the back of this letter. This letter has been exhibited by this witness as Exhibit-K-l. The gang took him from one place to another for three months'. After 15 days of the abduction, he heard Narain Das and Navin Kumar saying "Ram Ram Sardar Ji", but he did not see them. On 3.1.1999 when he was being carried through jungle, he was recovered by the police as the bandits had run away leaving him behind. He introduced himself to the police. During custody of the Dacoits, he came to know that Munna Guzar resident of Village Jahtoli, Rajjan Mehtar and Ashok were amongst them.
10. P.W.-2 Mata Prasad, the complainant of the case also supported the statement of P.W.I and proved the letter received from the Dacoits and also proved the report lodged with the police.
11. P.W.3 H.C. Mahtab Singh is the scribe of the chick F.I.R. and the G.D. of the registration of the case and had proved these documents. He also proved the letter sent by the Dacoits and the memo of its taking into custody by the police.
12. P.W.4 and P.W.5 are the Investigating Officers about whom the discussion has been made in the earlier part of the judgment.
13. The statement of the accused-appellants were recorded in which they denied from the prosecution case. Accused Ashok, Virnedra Singh and Kalloo Yadav stated that their implication was due to enmity. Accused Navin Kumar and Narain Das stated that they have been implicated as the complainant wanted to take money from them.
14. Accused persons examined D.W.I Radhey Lal in their defence. He stated that paper Nos. 33Kha and 35Kha were in the handwriting of Anjani Kumar alias Lalji. He also stated that Narain Das and Navin Kumar are the person of good character and they used to give silver and money on loan to small traders. Anjani Kumar also used to do transaction with Narain Das and Navin Kumar.
15. The learned trial Court after analysing the evidence produced by the prosecution found the offences under Section 364A read with Section 120B, I.P.C. and Section 14 of the Dacoity Affected Area Act proved against the appellants Narain Das and Navin Kumar and convicted them in the aforesaid manner.
16. The trial Court also found the case under Section 364A and 14 Dacoity Affected Area Act proved against Virendra Singh alias Veerey and convicted him in the aforesaid manner.
17. Accused Kalloo alias Vasdeo and Ashok Kumar were acquitted as the charges could not be proved against them by the prosecution.
18. We have heard Shri G.S. Chaturvedi and Shri R.K. Kaushik, learned Counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
19. First of all, we will discuss the case of the appellants Narain Das and Navin Kumar, whose conviction is based on the evidence of conspiracy, which is alleged to have been entered between them and the appellant Virendra Singh alias Veerey.
20. Learned Counsel for these appellants argued that the record does not show any evidence of conspiracy against the above appellants and, therefore, they have wrongly been held guilty by the trial Court. In order to appreciate the argument, we shall advert to the law of conspiracy, with its definition, the essential features and required proof.
21. Section 120A, I.P.C defines " Criminal Conspiracy". According to this Section when two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done (i) an illegal act, or (ii) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy. In Major E.G. Barsay v. State of Bombay , the Apex Court has said:
The gist of the offence is an agreement to break the law. The parties to such an agreement will be guilty of criminal conspiracy, though the illegal act agreed to be done has not been done. So too, it is not an ingredient of the offence that all the parties should agree to do a single illegal act. It may comprise the commission of a number of acts.
22. In State v. Nalini 1999 SCC (Cri) 691, it was observed:
In reaching the stage of meeting of minds, two or more persons share information about doing an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means. This is the first stage where each is said to have knowledge of a plan for committing an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means. Among those sharing the information some or all may form an intention to do an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means. Those who do form the requisite intention would be parties to the agreement and would be conspirators but those who drop out cannot be roped in as collaborators on the basis of mere knowledge unless they commit acts or omissions from which a guilty common intention can be inferred. It is not necessary that all the conspirators should participate from the inception to the end of the conspiracy; some may join the conspiracy after the time when such intention was first entertained by any one of them and some others may quit from the conspiracy. All of them cannot but be treated as conspirators. Where in pursuance of the agreement the conspirators commit offences individually or adopt illegal means to do a legal act which has a nexus with the object of conspiracy, all of them will be liable for such offences even if some of them have not actively participated in the commission of those offences.
23. Thus to constitute a conspiracy, meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing an illegal act or an act by illegal means is the first and primary condition and it is not necessary that all the conspirators must know each and every detail of the conspiracy. Neither it is necessary that everyone of the conspirators takes active part in the commission of each and every conspiratorial acts. The agreement amongst the conspirators can be inferred by necessary implication. In most of the cases, the conspiracies are proved by the circumstantial evidence, as the conspiracy is seldom an open affair. The existence of conspiracy and its objects are usually deduced from the circumstances of the case and the conduct of the accused involved in the conspiracy. While appreciating the evidence of the conspiracy, it is incumbent on the court to keep in mind the well-known rule governing circumstantial evidence viz. each and every incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable evidence and the circumstances proved must form a chain of events from which the only irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the accused can be safely drawn, and no other hypothesis except the guilt is possible. Criminal conspiracy is an independent offence in the Penal Code. The unlawful agreement is sine qua non for constituting offence under the Penal Code and not an accomplishment. Conspiracy consists of the scheme or adjustment between two or more persons which may be express or implied or partly express and partly implied. Mere knowledge, even discussion, of the plan would not per se constitute conspiracy. The offence of conspiracy shall continue till the termination of agreement.
24. Suspicion cannot take the place of legal proof and prosecution would be required to prove each and every circumstance in the chain of circumstances so as to complete the chain. It is true that in most of the cases, it is not possible to prove the agreement between the conspirators by direct evidence but the same can be inferred from the circumstances giving rise to conclusive or irresistible inference of an agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence. It is held in Noor Mohd. Yusuf Momin v. State of Maharashtra 1970 SCC (Crl) 274, that:
In most cases proof of conspiracy is largely inferential though the inference must be founded on solid facts. Surrounding circumstances and antecedent and subsequent conduct among other factors, constitute relevant material.
25. It is cumulative effect of the proved circumstances which should be taken into account in determining the guilt of the accused. Of course, each one of] the circumstances should be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The acts or conduct of the parties must be conscious and clear enough to infer their concurrence as to the common design and its execution.
26. We shall now proceed to examine the evidence available on record to see as to whether the offence punishable under Section 364A, I.P.C. read with Section 120B, I.P.C. is made out against the appellants or not.
27. It appears from the record that no direct evidence to prove the conspiracy for the offence punishable under Section 364A, I.P.C. was made available by the; prosecution. It wholly relied upon the circumstantial evidence and the circumstances by which the prosecution wanted to i prove the conspiracy were (i) That the appellants Navin and Narain Das sent Anjani Kumar alias Lalji with Veerendra Singh alias Veerey and Kalloo on 5.10.98 assuring him that these persons were known to them and they also guaranteed the safe return of Anjani Kumar to his house and (ii) that while in the custody of Dacoits Anjani Kumar heard Navin and Narain Das saying "Ram Ram Sardar Ji" to a Dacoit.
28. In our opinion, both the above circumstances even if found to be proved cannot lead to the irresistible conclusion that the appellants Narain Das and Navin Kumar conspired into the offence of abduction or in the demand of ransom either with Virendra Singh alias Veerey or Kalloo or with any of the Dacoits, who kept Anjani Kumar under detention. At the most, a suspicion can be raised that the appellants Narain Das and Navin Kumar were also instrumental in the abduction of Anjani Kumar and demand of ransom for his release but howsoever grave the suspicion may be, it cannot take the place of legal proof.
29. In our considered view, the learned trial Court was not justified in holding that these appellants conspired in the abduction of Anjani Kumar alias Lalji or in the demand of ransom for his safe release and thus, their conviction for the offence punishable under Section 364A read with Section 120B and 14 of the Dacoity Act is not proper and is liable to be set aside.
30. Now we take up the case of appellant Virendra Singh alias Veerey. He is the person against whom the prosecution case is that he carried the victim on his motorcycle and managed to hand him over to the Dacoits, who later on put the demand for ransom.
31. To prove the case against this appellant, the prosecution has mainly relied upon the statement of the victim himself (P.W.I).
32. The victim stated before the trial court that on 5.10.98 at 6.30 a.m. the appellant Virendra Bhadoria came to his house along with Navin and Kalloo. Navin told him that the appellant Virendra Bhadoria and Kalloo were going to Gohad on motorcycle and he should also accompany them, so that he would save the fare. Narain Das also came there. On the assurance of Narain Das and Navin he became ready. He was taken on motorcycle from his village to Rampura by this appellant where he got the kerosene oil filled in the motorcycle from the shop of his maternal uncle Jamuna Prasad Soni. From Rampura all reached Bagra where they took breakfast. Kalloo stayed there. From Bagra he accompanied the appellant Virendra Singh. Both went on Bhind Road. The appellant stopped his motorcycle near Medha Ghat, a place near village Umri. When he asked from Virendra Singh as to why he had stopped the motorcycle, he said that he had to attend the call of nature. He and the appellant both attended the call of nature, thereafter, the appellant blew the horn of the motorcycle and after leaving him alone went away. Immediately then four persons in police uniform appeared there and took him away in the Jungle in the gang of Nirbhay Singh Guzar, Dacoit. Later on a demand of Rs. 11,00,000/- was made from him to which he showed his inability. Ho was introduced to Dacoit Nirbhay Singh Guzar and Munni Pandey. The Dacoits sent a letter to his father demanding a ransom of Rs. 7,51,101/-. He was also compelled to write on the back of this letter. The statement of the victim Anjani Kumar mentioned above could not be belied by the defence, thus, it is liable to be believed. From his statement, it is proved that the appellant purposely stopped his motorcycle near Medhaghat in order to hand over the victim to the Dacoits. The fact of intentional handing over of the victim to the Dacoits is proved by the facts that the appellant purposely stopped the vehicle, purposely blew horn in order to give signal to the Dacoits that he had reached with the kidnapped person and that he did not care to allow the victim to sit on the motorcycle and ran away immediately after blowing the horn. The conduct of the appellant shows that ho intentionally brought the victim on his motorcycle at the place of abduction and facilitated the Dacoits to take the custody of victim, who was brought by him at the preassigned spot. The culpability of the victim is also visible from the fact that after coming from the spot of abduction, he did not care to inform anybody that the victim had been abducted by the Dacoits. If his intention would have been bona fide and he would not have been instrumental in handing over the victim to the Dacoits, he would have certainly taken the recourse at the nearby police outpost or he would have informed at the house of the victim. As it was not done by the victim, it shows that he actively participated in the act of abduction of the victim, for the release of which the ransom was demanded by the Dacoits.
33. Thus, the accused-appellant had committed the offence of abduction for ransom and he was rightly convicted for this offence by the court below and there appears no error in the conviction recorded against the appellant.
34. In view of the above discussion, we find the appeal No. 2046 of 2005 liable to be allowed and appeal No. 2696 of 2005 liable to be dismissed.
35. Appeal No. 2046 of 2005 is hereby allowed and the appellants Narain Das and Navin Kumar are hereby acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 364A and 120B, I.P.C. and Section 14 Dacoity Affected Area Act.
36. Appeal No. 2696 of 2005 is hereby dismissed. Appellant Virendra Singh alias Veerey shall be taken into custody to serve out the sentence awarded by the learned court below. The order to this effect be transmitted to the Court below within three days from today for compliance.