Patna High Court
Pradip Kumar Shrivastava vs State Of Bihar on 20 May, 2010
Author: Gopal Prasad
Bench: Shyam Kishore Sharma, Gopal Prasad
CR. APPEAL (D.B.) No.621 of 2006
With
CR. APPEAL (DB) No.572 of 2006
With
CR. APPEAL (DB) No.583 of 2006
With
CR. APPEAL (DB) No.600 of 2006
With
CR. APPEAL (DB) No.614 of 2006
With
CR. APPEAL (DB) No.615 of 2006
With
CR. APPEAL (DB) No.618 of 2006
With
CR. APPEAL (DB) No.733 of 2006
With
CR. APPEAL (DB) No.743 of 2006
****
Against the judgment and order of conviction, dated 25th May, 2006, passed by
Shri A.K. Shriwastava, Session's Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram, in Session's Trial
No. 245 of 2006
****
KANHAIYA LAL, S/O JAI NARAYAN PRASAD GUPTA, RESIDENT OF
VILLAGE BIHARIGANJ, P.S. BIHARIGANJ, DISTRICT MADHEPURA
.. Appellant
(in CR. APPEAL (D.B.) No.621 of 2006)
UPENDRA KUMAR SINHA, S/O LATE BAIKUNTH PRASAD SINHA @
BAIKUNTH SAHAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BAR, P.S. MADANPUR,
DISTRICT AURANGABAD .. Appellant
(in CR. APPEAL (DB) No.572 of 2006)
MADAN PRASAD THATHERA, S/O DINA THATHERA, RESIDENT OF
VILLAGE MACHHARHATTA, P.S. JAGDISHPUR, DISTRICT BHOJPUR
AT PRESENT MOHALLA SHAHPUR POKHRA, P.S. AURANGABAD,
DISTRICT AURANGABAD .. Appellant
(in CR. APPEAL (DB) No.583 of 2006)
PRADIP KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA, S/O LATE SHIV SHANKAR LAL
SHRIVASTAVA, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA PATEL CHOWK (NEAR
CANAL), P.S. BHABHUA, DISTRICT KAIMUAR (BHABUA)
.. Appellant
(in CR. APPEAL (DB) No.600 of 2006)
2
RAMJEE PRAJAPATI, S/O RAJ NATH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
TELAUTHU, DISTRICT ROHTAS .. Appellant
(in CR. APPEAL (DB) No.614 of 2006)
SANTOSH KUMAR @ SANTOSH GUPTA, S/O SHRI DASHRATH SAH,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SHIVGANJ, P.S. MADANPUR, DISTRICT
AURANGABAD .. Appellant
(in CR. APPEAL (DB) No.615 of 2006)
DESH DEEPAK KUMAR VIHANGAM @ DEEPAK KUMAR, S/O LATE
RAJENDRA PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHAPAUR, P.S.
MASAURHI IN THE DISTRICT OF PATNA.. Appellant
(in CR. APPEAL (DB) No.618 of 2006)
BIMLESH KUMAR SINGH, S/O LATE GANESH SINGH, RESIDENT OF
VILLAGE MAHASI, P.S. OBARA, DISTRICT AURANGABAD
.. Appellant
(in CR. APPEAL (DB) No.733 of 2006)
ABHAY KUMAR @ PAPPU, S/O RAMJEE PRAJAPATI, RESIDENT OF
VILLAGE TELAUTHU, P.S. TELAUTHU, DISTRICT ROHTAS
.. Appellant
(in CR. APPEAL (DB) No.743 of 2006)
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR .. Respondent
(in all the Criminal Appeals)
****
For the appellants .. M/S Rana Pratap Singh, Shakil
Ahmad Khan and M.S.
Madhup, Sr. Advs. With
M/S Sumant Singh, Aruni
Singh Avineesh Kr. Singh,
Sajid Slaim Khan, Ashraf
Ansari, Dwivedy Surendra,
Vikramdeo Singh, Dharamdeo
Kr. Singh, Ram Pravesh Kr.,
Sudhir Kr. Sinha, Ashok Kr.
Sinha No. 10, Advs.
3
For the respondent .. Mr. Ashwani Kr. Sinha, A.P.P.
****
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD
Shyam Kishore Sharma &
Gopal Prasad, JJ. These nine appeals were heard together and being
disposed off by this common judgment and order as all the appeals arise of
the same judgment and order passed in Session's Trial No. 245 of 2006 in
connection with Dehri Town P.S. Case No. 27 of 2006 for offence and
under Section 364A and allied sections of the Penal Code.
2. The appellant, Kanhaiya Lal, of Criminal Appeal No. 621
of 2006 (D.B.), appellant, Pradip Kumar Shrivastava, of Criminal Appeal
No.600 of 2006 (D.B.), appellant, Bimlesh Kumar Singh, of Criminal
Appeal No.733 of 2006 (D.B.), appellant, Upendra Kumar Sinha of
Criminal Appeal No. 572 of 2006 (D.B.), appellant, Madan Prasad
Thathera, of Criminal Appeal No. 583 of 2006 (D.B.) and appellant,
Santosh Kumar Singh @ Santosh Gupta, of Criminal Appeal No. 615 of
2006 (D.B.) have been convicted under Section 364A of the Penal Code and
have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of
rupees one lacs each to be recovered from the self and ancestral property of
the appellants and appellant, Abhay Kumar @ Pappu, of Criminal Appeal
No. 743 of 2006 (D.B.) and appellant, Ramjee Prajapati, of Criminal
Appeal No. 614 of 2006 (D.B.) have been convicted under Sections 364A
4
and 120B of the Penal Code in criminal conspiracy in respect of kidnapping
and they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and
a fine of rupees one lacs each to be recovered from personal and ancestral
movable and immovable properties of the appellant.
3. The prosecution case, as transpired from the first
information report and the evidence of the witnesses, is that on 07 th
February, 2006, the victim, Dr. Shashi Kumar Sinha, (P.W. 3) the husband
of the informant, Kiran Sinha, proceeded at 11.00 a.m. from his residence at
Station Road, Dehri, to his clinic at Tilauthu by car, but, he did not reach his
clinic at Tilauthu. The informant got information from the staff of clinic
that the doctor has not reached and the staff reached to the residence of the
doctor and disclosed that the car of the doctor has not been found in the way
as well. The informant, Kiran Sinha, (P.W. 2) even tried to contact with her
husband, Dr. Shashi Kumar Sinha, but, could not contact as the mobile of
the husband was off and the matter was, ultimately, reported to the police
on which the first information report was lodged as a suspected case of
kidnapping of Dr. Shashi Kumar Sinha with his driver. However, Dr.
Amitabh Sinha, (P.W. 1) the son of the victim, Dr. Shashi Kumar Sinha,
came from Delhi. A phone call was received by Dr. Amitabh Sinha (P.W.
1) from the kidnappers regarding the initial demand of rupees one crore,
but, materialized at rupees twelve lacs to be paid at Ranchi and the son of
the informant paid the amount of rupees twelve lacs on 12th February, 2006,
to the kidnappers at Ranchi. However, the victim was not released even on
payment of the ransom amount of rupees twelve lacs and the kidnappers
5
demanded more money. A further demand was made and even a letter
received in the hand writing of the victim and rupees five lacs was, again,
demanded to be paid on 10th of March, 2006. The son of the informant
intimated the fact to the Superintendent of Police, Dehri, and, thereafter, a
trap arranged. The son of the informant proceeded with rupees five land as
per instruction of the kidnappers to follow the route from Hanuman Mandir
to Ganchi Maidan, Patna, through Frazer Road till Gaighat. Two persons
were arrested near the Patna Medical College & Hospital by police, who
had arranged the trap on suspicion. The two persons arrested disclosed their
name as Desh Deepak Kumar Vihangam and Kanhaiya Lal. Desh Deepak
Kumar Vihangam confessed and disclosed about the whereabouts of the
victim and at their instance the victim was recovered from the place of
recovery along with four accused who were arrested were Bimlesh Kumar
Singh, Madan Prasad Thathera, Pradip Kumar Shrivastava and Upendra
Kumar Sinha. Two persons Ramjee Prajapati and Abhay Kumar @ Pappu,
the sons of the Compounder of the doctor, were found during the period of
kidnapping having talked with kidnappers and one of mobiles used said to
be belonging to Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Gupta.
4. However, on the fardbeyan of the informant, Kiran
Sinha, the first information report was lodged and investigation proceeded
and after investigation the charge sheet was submitted cognizance taken.
After taking cognizance the charge was framed against seven accused
persons for offence under Section 364A of the Penal Code. Against Abhay
Kumar @ Pappu and Ramjee Prajapati for offence under Sections 364A and
6
120B of the Penal Code, the charge was framed against Desh Deepak
Kumar Vihangam for offence under Section 379 of the Penal Code for
dishonestly taking the mobile set.
5. After submission of the charge sheet the trial proceeded
eight witnesses were examined to prove the prosecution case, who are P.W.
1, Amitabh Sinha, P.W. 2, Kiran Sinha, P.W. 3, Dr. Shashi Kumar Sinha,
P.W. 4 Kishra Kumar Singh, P.W. 5, Md. Salauddin, P.W. 6, Sudarshan
Prasad, P.W. 7, Vinod Kumar Mishra, and P.W. 8, Yogesh Chandra. The
documentary evidence adduced in the case is Exhibit 1, signature of Amit
Kumar Sinha on statement under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure
Code, Exhibit 2, signature of Kiran Sinha on fardbeyan, Exhibits 3, 3/1 and
3/2 signatures of Dr. Shashi Kumar Sinha on three letters, Exhibit 3/2,
signature of Dr. Shashi Kumar Sinha on Zimanama of sim card, Exhibit 4
series, signature on the denomination of rupees five hundred notes, Exhibits
5 series, signature on the denomination of rupees one thousand notes,
Exhibit 6 mobile, Exhibit 7 statement of Dr. Shashi Kumar Sinha under
Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Exhibit 8 statement of
Amitabh under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Exhibit 9
formal first information report, Exhibit 10 seizure list, Exhibit 11
production-cum-seizure list, Exhibit 12 seizure list, Exhibit 13 seizure list,
Exhibit 14 Pearless Diary, Exhibit 15 production-cum-seizure list and
Exhibit 16 seizure list.
6. Defence has also adduced documentary and oral
evidence. The oral evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is D.W.
7
1, Mukesh Kumar. The documentary evidence adduced is Exhibit „A‟,
carbon copy of the seizure list, Exhibit „B‟ pass book, Exhibit „C‟ the
certified photo stat copy of the Station Diary Entry, dated 09.03.2006 to
10.03.2006, bearing no. 342 to 427, Exhibit „D‟ Station Diary Entry, dated
09.03.2006 to 10.03.2006 bearing no. 307 to 335.
7. On considering the oral and documentary evidence the
order of conviction and sentence recorded by learned Court below as
mentioned above at the out set.
8. The learned counsel for the appellants made their
submissions on different sets and have asserted that the first information
report is against unknown and the memo of arrest and the search and seizure
prepared are not in accordance with law and there is no reliable and cogent
evidence of the identification of the accused persons as no test identification
parade has been conducted during investigation prior to the identification of
the accused persons and even on their arrest the face of the accused persons
were not concealed to conduct the test identification parade in accordance
with law and the seizure list has not been prepared and proved which suffers
from various irregularities and, further, the evidence of conspiracy has not
been established to attract Section 10 of the Excise Act and it has to be
established that there were amongst the accused.
9. With regard to appellant, Kanhaiya Lal, it has been
submitted that P.Ws. 3 and 4 have not named and identified and there is no
confession leading to recovery with regard to this appellant and there is no
8
evidence about the involvement except the investigating officer caught him
on suspicion with the appellant, Desh Deepak Kumar Vihangam.
10. With regard to appellant, Santosh Kumar @ Santosh
Gupta, it has been stated that he has not been identified in the dock and
there is no reliable evidence against him.
11. With regard to appellants, Madan Prasad Thathera,
Upendra Kumar Sinha, Pradip Kumar Shrivastava and Bimlesh Kumar
Singh, it has been asserted that no test identification parade has been
conducted and their identification in the dock is not valid and legal without
the test identification parade and they have been exposed and they were
shown to the witnesses in the Police Station and their mere presence at the
placse of occurrence without any nexus have not been established and the
role assigned to them can not be held them guilty for the offence.
12. With regard to appellants, Ramjee Prajapati and Abhay
Kumar @ Pappu, it has been asserted that having regard to the fact that
they were close to the victim and, hence, their talk on the mobile of victim
which was in possession of the accused can not be treated as their
implication in the crime and, further, the conspiracy has not been
established in accordance with law and, further no paper or documentary
evidence has been proved to establish with the two telephones were actually
belong to the appellant, Ramjee Prajapati and Abhay Kumar @ Pappu to
prove conspirary.
13. With regard to appellant, Desh Deepak Kumar
Vihangam, it is stated that neither his test identification parade was
9
conducted nor alleged search and seizure on confessional statement were in
accordance with law. It has further been contended that these appellants
were taken in custody on 10th March, 2006, and was produced before the
Magistrate on 14th March, 2006, and was kept under the custody of the
police beyond twenty four hours without producing them before any
Magistrate, itself, shows the attitude of the prosecution of his false
implication to manufacture the evidence and no test identification parade
has been conducted and the face of the appellant has been shown for
facilitating his identity indicates the false implication and, hence, contended
that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge.
14. The learned counsel for the State, however, contends
that this case, in which the accused persons arrested along with victim, in
such a situation the victim being with the accused persons well identifying
the accused during his captivity and, hence, in this case test identification
parade is not required when the appellants were in custody. Under the facts
and circumstances it does not demand conducting of test identification
parade during investigation and, further, this is a case of confession leading
to discovery and even at the confession of the accused the victim was
recovered and even ransom money recovered to the extent of rupees six lacs
and it can not be said that this recovery is false when rupees six lacs was
recovered and submitted which was given to the kidnappers as ransom
amount and some of the notes which was recovered had the initial of P.W.
1, which is said to have paid to the kidnappers and, further, there is
explanation for producing the victim beyond twenty four hours and
10
contended that the prosecution has been able to prove the charges beyond
reasonable doubts.
15. Hence, on the respective submissions of the parties the
question for consideration whether the prosecution has been able to prove
the charges beyond reasonable doubts.
16. Now I proceed to consider the evidence in the light of
the submission made by the parties.
17. The prosecution, as alleged in the fardbeyan by the
informant Kiran Sinha, the wife of the victim, Dr. Shashi Kumar Sinha, that
on 07.02.2006 her husband, as usual, left his house at 11.00 a.m. from his
residence at Dehri for Tilauthu, but, he did not reach Tilauthu till 01.00 p.m.
in his clinic and then a staff informed the informant and one of the staff
rushed from Tilauthu to Dehri and disclosed that the car was not found even
in the way from Tilauthu to Dehri then the informant contacted her relatives
and expressed suspicion about the kidnapping. On the fardbeyan the first
information report lodged. The fardbeyan has been proved is Exhibit 2.
18. P.W. 2 is the informant. She has come to support the
prosecution case and has stated that at 01.00 p.m. she received telephone of
Compounder, Pappu, son of Ramjee Prajapati, informing about none
reaching of Dr. Shashi Kumar Sinha and Pappu reached at about 02.00 p.m.
and disclosed that it appears that the doctor has been kidnapped. She has
further stated that the medicine shop of Pappu Prajapati is inside the clinic
and has identified Pappu and Ramjee Prajapati. Hence, this witness
supported the prosecution case about the lodging of first information report
11
after information about the kidnapping of Dr. Shashi Kumar Sinha on the
date of occurrence, itself, i.e., 07.02.2006.
19 P.W. 1 is Dr. Amitabh Sinha, son of the victim. He has
stated in his evidence that he got information that his father proceeded from
his house to clinic, but, did not reach the clinic at Tilauthu and on this
information he reached Dehri and met with the Superintendent of Police and
Superintendent of Police disclosed that it is a case of kidnapping as the car
has been recovered. He has, further, stated in his evidence that on 13th
February, 2006, he received a telephonic call. The phone, received, was
from the mobile of his father, Dr. Shashi Kumar Sinha, and by the said call
it was communicated that the victim, the father of this witness, is with them
and they demanded rupees one crore for his release as ransom. This witness
retracted to said demand that he is unable to arrange such huge amount then
it was said to arrange whatever he can do. Subsequently the talk made on
phone continuously and the amount of ransom was reduced from rupees one
crore to rupees fifty lacs, then to rupees twenty five lacs and then to rupees
twenty lacs and, ultimately, a telephonic call received on 23rd February,
2006 in which it was stated to come to Ranchi along with rupees twelve lacs
and to stay in a hotel at Station Road, Ranchi, and was asked to come to
Ratu Raod on a rickshaw where a person having ten rupees in his hand and
an A.T.M. card having the name of mother, Kiranbala Sinha, shall meet him
and then to pay the ransom amount to him. The rupees twelve lacs was paid
as ransom as per instruction of kidnappers. However, he received a
telephone call after two days of the said payment of ransom from one of
12
kidnappers, who said that his associates are not ready to release the victims
and asked to further arrange rupees five lacs and, thereafter, this followed
with the letters of his father having been received by post. Out of the three
letters, one addressed to his mother, other to his sister and third in the name
of Ragni Sinha, who happens to be the aunt of the victim. The said letters
were written in the writing of the father of this witness in which request was
made for arranging the money and after 3-4 days, again, a telephone call
was received in which it was queried that how much money was arranged
and again on 09th March, 2006, a telephone call was, again, received in
which a direction was issued to come to Patna with rupees five lacs. A
direction was issued to take a rickshaw at Hanuman Mandir and come to
Gandhi Maidan via Frazer Road and proceed from Gandhi Maidan to
Gaighat through Engineering College. P.W. 1 has further stated in his
evidence that he gave the information to the Superintendent of Police and
came to Patna in the night of 09th March, 2006, by Plamau Express train and
he received a telephone message at 06.00 a.m. from kidnappers to proceed
on a rickshaw with the amount of rupees five lacs at about 07.30 a.m. on the
said route. Thereafter, he proceeded on the route and after 3-4 hours he
received a telephonic call of Inspector, K.K. Singh, who disclosed that two
persons have been arrested, one is Desh Deepak Kumar Vihangam and
other is Kanhaiya Lal and he went to Kotwali Police Station and identified
one of the accused, Desh Deepak Kumar Vihangam, was the same person
who had received the ransom of rupees twelve lacs at Ranchi. However, in
cross examination he stated that he received telephone of Inspector, K.K.
13
Singh, at about 12.00-01.00 p.m. and reached at Kotwali Police Station at
03.00-04.00p.m. where the accused were restrained there.
20. P.W. 4 is Krishna Kumar Singh. He has stated in his evidence that a case was registered under Section 364A of the Penal Code as Dehri P.S. Case No. 27 of 2006 in which Dr. Shashi Kumar Sinha, along with his driver, Md. Salauddin, were kidnapped and he was asked to cooperate in the investigation by the Superintendent of Police and on the said direction of the Superintendent of Police he was aiding the investigation officer of Dehri P.S. Case No. 27 of 2006. He learnt from Dr. Amitabh Sinha that the kidnappers have taken rupees twelve lacs from him under threat and out of fear he was compelled to pay the ransom amount and disclosed that he received a call on 23.02.2006 from a mobile no. 9835660483 and, again, on 09.03.2006 the Superintendent of Police called him in his office where Yogesh Chandra and Dr. Amitabh Sinha were also present and Dr. Amitabh Sinha showed him three letters which were written on 02.03.2006 in the writing of his father and the letters contained the agony and distress of the victim, Dr. Shashi Kumar Sinha. Dr. Amitabh Sinha, further, disclosed that again a demand has been made for release of his father to the tune of rupees five lacs and so special task force was prepared on the direction of the Superintendent of Police for raid and it was decided that on 10.03.2006 he should reach Patna. He has further stated that at 06.39 a.m. Dr. Amitabh Sinha informed that the kidnappers have contacted him to get a rickshaw at Mahaveer Mandir and to proceed to Gandhi Maidan, thereafter, he (this witness P.W. 4) along with Yogesh 14 Chandra, Abhay Narayan Singh and Ajay Kumar Singh, Inspectors of Koches, Rohtas, decided that he (P.W. 4) will follow Dr. Amitabh Sinha and Tarique Ahmad will keep a vigilant and in the last Yogesh Chandra will be in car. When Dr. Amitabh Sinha reach on Ashok Raj Path a black Yamaha motorcycle with two persons got behind the rickshaw of Dr. Amitabh Sinha and were constantly going behind the rickshaw. The other vehicles, on the road, were either going forward or leaving behind, as per their speed, but, this motorcycle maintained to follow the said rickshaw and this created a doubt to the raiding party and so it is stated that they decided to take them in custody and this witness left his rickshaw, apprehended the two persons on motorcycle and took them in Tata Sumo in which Yogesh Chandra was following them and these two persons, who were on the motorcycle, disclosed their name as Kanhaiya Lal and the person on the rear seat with helmet disclosed his name as Desh Deepkt Kumar Vihangam. The said motorcycle was also seized as they had not produced any paper and seizure list was prepared before two independent witnesses and the said motorcycle was kept in safe custody at Pirbahore Police Station and they, again, proceed behind Dr. Amitabh Sinha, for keeping vigilance towards Gaighat as the accused persons disclosed that it has been instructed that if the money was not taken near Engineering College then he (P.W. 4) will change their strategy and will go up to Gaighat. However, up to Gaighat none came to take the money and then he got satisfied that there is no other person and only these two persons would have been involved and then he returned back to Kotwali Police Station and Dr. Amitabh Sinha also reached 15 there. Dr. Amitabh Sinha at Kotwali Police Station identified Desh Deepak Kumar Vihangam as a person to whom ransom of rupees twelve lacs at Ranchi was paid in pretext of releasing the victim, Dr. Shashi Kumar Sinha. He has, further, stated in his evidence that on said identification of Desh Deepak Kumar Vihangam by Dr. Amitabh Sinha gave his confessional statement in Kotwali Police Station and disclosed that he along with Surendra Kumar planned for kidnapping. The matter was informed to the Superintendent of Police and the Superintendent of Police and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chandra Prasad, were at Patna. He has, further, stated in his evidence that the accused, Desh Deepak Kumar Vihangam, disclosed to conduct the raid regarding recovery of victims as soon as possible otherwise if he (accused, Desh Deepak Kumar Vihangam) will not reach there then his men will kill victim, Dr. Shashi Kumar Sinha, and his driver, Md. Slauddin, who are in captivity. He disclosed that doctor, the victim, has been kept in Captivity at Rafiganj Road in Aurangabad and, hence, since the area was a naxal infested area proper arrangement was made as well as for search and safety, security and raid he along with Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chandrama Prasad, Sub Inspector of Police, Krishna Kumar Singh, Sub Inspector of Police, Ajay Kumar Singh, Sub Inspector of Police, Yogesh Chandra and Sub Inspector of Police, Tarique Ahmad, on the information given by Desh Deepak Kumar Vihangam reached in a house Upendra Kumar Sinha of village Bar and this accused, Desh Deepak Kumar Vihangam, pointed out the house in which Dr. Shashi Kumar Sinha, along with his driver, have been kept in captivity 16 and his associates are also in that house. The said house was raided and from a cabin at the west-southern corner Dr. Shashi Kumar Sinha and his driver were released and taken out safely and four persons, who were having the vigil on the victims were also arrested along with fire arms who disclosed their name as Pradit Kumar Shrivastava, Madan Prasad Thathera, Upendra Kumar Sinha and Bimlesh Kumar Singh. Thereafter, he along with accused returned back to Patna and, again, on the disclosure of Desh Deepak Kumar Vihangam a raid was made at his rented house and a brief case of chocolate colour recovered which was kept concealed behind the bed with a sticker of "D" "K" pasted on brief case and the said brief case was opened after the lock number has been disclosed by Desh Deepak Kumar Vihangam and from the said brief case rupees six lacs recovered in four bundles of denomination of rupees five hundred, each containing rupees one lac and one bundle of rupees two lacs, containing the note of rupees one thousand denomination and a sim card bearing no. 9835660483 was also recovered and this number was used for ransom on 23.02.2006 and 24.02.3006.
21. P.W. 3 is the victim and he has supported the prosecution that he was kidnapped at Laxmanbigha More in way from his house at Dehri to clinic at Tilauthu and in between this way a Tata Sumo obstructed and his car can not move forward due to road blockade and his car was surrounded by ten armed persons, they assaulted the driver and got into the car and one of them sat on the driving seat and took the car to Indrapuri and after going on kutcha rasta the car was stopped at a distance 17 of one kilometer from the Sone Barrage and he said to get down from his car along with the driver and was shifted on Tata Sumo and they were given spectacles with stickers and after traveling for several kilometers he was told to get down from the car and asked to sit in a tempo and, thereafter, traveling for an hour he was kept in a room. They threatened and asked to disclose the name and address of his son and his family. He has, further, stated that the accused persons were talking amongst themselves and naming Deepak and Saha and addressing one and another as Surendra and Sunil and four persons disclosed their name as Upendra Kumar Sinha, Madan Prasad Thathera, Bimlesh Kumar Singh, Pradip Kumar Shrivastava and Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Gupta. He has, further, stated that four persons, Madan Prasad Thathera, Bimlesh Kumar Singh, Desh Deepak Kumar Vihangam and Upendra Kumar Sinha remained there and they were addressing Upendra that he is the owner of the house and have to arrange everything. He has proved the three letters written by him under the pressure of Desh Deepak Kumar Vihangam and other accused, which have marked as Exhibits 3, 3/1 and 3/2. He has, further, stated that in the night of 10th March, 2006, he heard the sound of breaking the door and police started saying to open the door and at the said utterance of the police he opened the door and police entered. He has, further, stated that police caught Upendra from another room and seized the articles and he was taken in the car in which Deepak was also sitting. He has, further, stated in his evidence that the accused persons disclosed him that Santosh, Abhay and Pappu have arrange the occurrence. The alias name of Pappu is Abhay. 18 Hence, from the evidence of this witness, it is apparent that this witness has identified the accused persons, Bimlesh Kumar Singh, Madan Prasad Thathera, Desh Deepak Kumar Vihangam in dock. This witness stated that even Santosh and Abhay were also instrumental in the crime.
22. P.W. 5 is the driver, who is also the victim and he has also supported the prosecution case about the occurrence regarding the kidnapping and has stated that the kidnapping was done at Laxmanbigha More as Tata Sumo used to jammed the road and then ten persons surrounded and took them towards Indrapuri on a kutcha road and, thereafter, passing the barrage they were taken on another car. They were blind folded by spectacles and thereafter they got down form car and be seated on a tempo and after captivity of 32-33 days the administration reached there and set them free. He has, further, stated that four persons used to sleep with them and identified the four persons as Pradip Kumar Shrivastava, Madan Prasad Thathera, Upendra Kumar Sinha and Bimlesh Kumar Singh.
23. P.W. 8 is the investigating officer and he has proved the formal first information report, Exhibit 9, which was lodged at the report of Kiran Sinha, the informant and after lodging the first information report he took the investigation, inspected the place of occurrence, which is Laxmanbigha More, where the victims were kidnapped. The description is Dehri in the Kurthi Tilauthu Main More and to the west there is a link road leading to Niyamadeeh and about a distance of 150 feet west there is Shankerpur Bridge and to the west there is Laxmanbigha village. He has, 19 further, stated that he got the call details of the mobile of victim bearing no. 9431028412 and learnt that about seventeen hours one minute there was talk with mobile no. 9425013734 with the above mentioned mobile of the victim. He has, further, stated that Dr. Amitabh Sinha disclosed on 27 th February, 2006, that he has paid rupees twelve lacs as ransom to the kidnappers and on two notes of each bundles of the notes given to kidnappers he had put his signature. He enquired about the call details of mobile no. 9835660483 and from the call details of mobile no. 9431028412, dated 17.02.2006 and 27.02.2006, it was learnt that the said mobile was used and constant talk was made with telephone no. 06184-264096 and 0431897301 and Ramjee Prajapati and Abhay Kumar @ Pappu were found to be owner of the said land line and mobile. Hence, from this evidence, it is apparent that Ramjee and Abhay were in contact with kidnappers with the above mentioned phone number of land and mobile since 19.02.2009 and the two persons Ramjee Prajapati and Abhay Kumar @ Pappu are the sons of the Compounder and were arrested on 06.03.2006 and, thereafter, on 07.03.2006 Dr. Amitabh Sinha came to the Police Station and disclosed about the letters written by his father in the name of the family members and production-cum-seizure list prepared which is Exhibit 11 and on 09.02.2006 the Superintendent of Police was informed that the kidnappers are demanding rupees five lacs from Dr. Amitabh Sinha and he has taped the voice of the kidnappers and so Dr. Amitab Sinha was called with the said recorded tape and, thereafter, a trap was arranged and Ajay Kumar Singh, Officer-in-Charge, Kotwali Police Station and Abhay Kumar Singh, 20 Officer-in-Charge, Gardanibagh Police Station, were deputed for raid and Tarique Ahmad, Officer-in-Charge, Koches, Rohtas, asked to be in Patna for security of Dr. Amitabh Sinha. Raid conducted and two persons were arrested at the gate of Patna Medical College & Hospital in suspicious condition with a black motorcycle, who disclosed their name as Kanhaiya Lal and Desh Deepak Kumar Vihangam and, thereafter, Dr. Amitabh Sinha identified the accused, Desh Deepak Kumar Vihangam, as the person who has taken the ransom at Ranchi. The statement of Desh Deepak Kumar Vihangam taken and as per the direction of the Superintendent of Police the raiding party proceeded for village Bar along with Desh Deepak Kumar Vihangam and Kanhaiya Lal and, thereafter, at village Bar the kidnappers were arrested from the house where the victims were in captivity and four kidnappers arrested with fire arms who disclosed their name as Pradip Kumar Shrivastava, Madan Prasad Thathera, Upendra Kumar Sinha and Bimlesh Kumar Singh and fire arms were recovered from their possession and separate seizure list prepared for arms and ammunition and filed it at Madanpur Police Station and, thereafter, at the disclosure of Desh Deepak Kumar Vihangam a brief case of chocolate colour was recovered from his rented house containing rupees six lacs and T.D. of rupees one lac. The said money was wrapped in newspaper in eight bundles of rupees five hundred note, each containing hundred notes in each bundles amounting about rupees four lacs and two bundles of rupees one thousand each containing about hundred notes in each bundle notes bear the initial of Dr. Amitabh Sinha indicated that the amount seized were ransom amount 21 received by kidnappers and a sim card bearing no. 983566048 which was used on 23.02.2006 for demand of ransom was also recovered from house of Desh Deepak Kumar Vihangam. He has, further, stated that from the house of one Santosh Kumar the card of Airtel prepaid mobile no. 9631017906 was recovered.
24. However, P.W. 7, the Judicial Magistrate, who has proved the statement of Dr. Shashi Kumar Sinha and Dr. Amitabh Sinha recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which has been marked as Exhibits 7 and 8.
25. P.W. 6 has proved the various documents and, hence, taking into consideration the facts that the prosecution has established that Dr. Shashi Kumar Sinha and Md. Salauddin, his driver, were kidnapped at Laxmanbigha More and were taken village Bar by the accused persons and kept in a house stated to be Upendra Kumar Sinha and a demand of ransom was made and which compelled Dr. Amitabh Singh, P.W. 1, to pay ransom of rupees twelve lacs at Ranchi and, thereafter, further demand of rupees five lacs was made and then the police arranged a trap on subsequent demand and two persons were apprehended while they were going to collect the ransom amount as per their direction to Dr. Amitabh Sinha and Dr. Amitabh Sinha identified one of them as the person who has received the ransom at Ranchi as Desh Deepak Kumar Vihangam and Kanhaiya Lal was with him while he was going to collect the ransom amount and caught under suspicious circumstances and on their disclosure the victims were recovered and set free and four accused persons were apprehended who were guarding 22 the victims in the house in the captivity and they were identified by both the victims, P.Ws. 3 and 5, well as by the police party who gone there along with Desh Deepak Kumar Vihangam from where they were arrested. The accused, Kanhaiya Lal, was going on motorcycle along with Desh Deepak Kumar Vihangam to collect the ransom amount, which speaks volume against Kanhaiya Lal and, further, it has been established that during the captivity Ramjee Prajapati and Abhay Kumar @ Pappu had talk with the mobile of the victim which was in possession of the kidnappers show their nexus in the crime. However, accused, Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Gupta, is concerned, though there is evidence against him as P.W. 3 itself claims to have identified as the kidnappers at the time of kidnapping, but, there is dispute raised as Santosh Yadav or Santosh Gupta and the time of identification, this witness was not present in Court and there is confusion in name about Santosh Yadav or Santosh Gupta. Hence, the prosecution has established the charge against all the appellants except Santosh Yadav @ Santosh Gupta.
26. The learned counsel for the appellant, Kanhaiya Lal, of Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 621 of 2006 has submitted that he has not been identified by P.Ws. 3 and 4 in any manner and only arrested with the appellant, Desh Deepak Kumar Vihangam. However, there is neither confession on his behalf nor any confession leading to recovery, so far as this appellant is concerned, and there is no evidence about his involvement except that P.Ws. 4 and 6 along with party caught him on suspicion with 23 Desh Deepak Kumar Vihangam, hence, it has been contended that any complicity in the crime has not been proved.
27. Having regard to the submission it is pertinent to mention that the offence alleged is an offence of kidnapping and various role has been attributed to the different persons and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this case appears to be a case of organized crime and the kidnapping for ransom and there is evidence that one set of accused persons kept them in captivity under the vigilance, some talking on telephone, some asking for ransom and some collecting the ransom, hence, the crime is not the crime by a person, but, the nature of the crime, itself, shows that there is due deliberation of different set of persons having the different set of activities and victims kept in captivity at village Bar and the demand has been made on telephone for further payment of rupees five lacs and in such a situation the raid conducted and P.W. 1 asked to following certain routes with rupees five lacs as the ransom amount and P.W. 1 is compelled to follow the route with rupees five lacs and the kidnappers proceeded to collect and in that regard the two persons arrested under suspicion which include this appellant on motorcycle following a rickshaw of P.W. 1 on Ashok Raj Path from petrol pump to Patna Medical College & Hospital and his conduct was being watched by P.Ws. 4 and 8 as given in the evidence that they were following P.W. 1, the son of the victim, and in this back ground not only the victim was recovered, but, also rupees six lacs was recovered which was paid as ransom at Ranchi and Desh Deepak Kumar Vihangam was identified as the person who had received the ransom 24 money at Ranchi. In this back ground the arrest of appellant, Kanhaiya Lal, with Desh Deepak Kumar Vihangam speaks volume. It can not be inferred in such a situation that Kanhaiya Lal has no knowledge. Here he was arrested with Desh Deepak Kumar Vihangam while going to collect the ransom amount and on his command P.W. 1, Dr. Amitabh Sinha, was proceeding along with rupees five lacs, hence, to believe that the case of the defence that Kanhaiya Lal had no knowledge about the kidnapping. When it has come in evidence that Kanhaiya Lal was not a stranger, but, was a friend of Desh Deepak Kumar Vihangam, hence, taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances and the fact that the offence alleged is of an organized crime which is being going on since last 32-33 days and is not a stray act, hence, in that circumstance the arrest of this appellant along with Desh Deepak Kumar Vihangam while pursuing and proceeding behind the rickshaw of P.W. 1 constantly on a motorcycle speaks sufficient to establish the complicity of Kanhaiya Lal in the crime. Hence, I find and hold that Kanhaiya Lal was concerned and the prosecution has been able to establish the complicity and charge against Kanhaiya Lal for offence of kidnapping.
28. The learned counsel for the appellants, Upendra Kumar Sinha, Madan Prasad Thathera, Pradip Kumar Shrivastava and Bimlesh Kumar Singh, submitted that these accused persons were arrested at village Bar, but, no attempt was made to conceal their face for conducting a test identification parade for their identification and since their faces were not concealed their identification is a tainted and the evidence of identification is neither reliable nor worthy of confidence to be relied upon. It has further 25 been contended that no arrest was prepared or proved in accordance with law and further it is alleged that they were arrested along with the victims, Dr. Shashi Kumar Sinha and Md. Salauddin, and neither a seizure list for the arms recovered from their possession nor even the first information report regarding any case instituted for fire arm has been proved and, hence, there is no evidence and even after their arrest no proper step taken to conceal their fact and kept the face open facilitating the identification and the statement of P.Ws. 4 and 5 was only taken after the arrival at Patna.
29. The learned counsel for the State, however, contends that it is not a fit case in which a test identification parade required to have been conducted when the police arrested the accused persons along with the victims who was kidnapped and kept in captivity for 32-33 days where accused persons were there to keep vigil over the victims.
30. It has come in evidence of P.W. 4 that after the arrest of Desh Deepak Kumar Vihangam on his confession led to recovery of the victims from the house of Upendra Kumar Sinha and arrest of four appellants, Upendra Kumar Sinha (Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 572 of 2006), Madan Prasad Thathera (Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 583 of 2006), Pradip Kumar Shrivastava (Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 600 of 2006) and Bimlesh Kumar Singh (Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 733 of 2006) and the accused persons were identified by P.Ws. 4 and 6 in Court as the persons who were arrested along with the victims at village Bar and P.Ws. 3 and 5, the victims, Dr. Shashi Kumar Sinha and Md. Salauddin, have identified these four appellants as the persons who used to keep vigil on the victims during their 26 captivity and have specifically stated and identified the victims with their name as Bimlesh Kumar Singh, Pradip Kumar Shrivastava, Madan Prasad Thathera and Upendra Kumar Sinha with specific mention that the three persons were sleeping with him and fourth was taken by the police from another village.
31. Since, P.Ws. 3 and 5 have asserted that these four appellants were used to sleep with them and they identified all the four accused persons with their name because while they were in captivity the accused persons were with them, since 32-33 days, hence, the probability of P.Ws. 3 and 5 to know the name of all the four appellants can not be doubted and their evidence can not be said to be tainted or suffer from infirmity and in such a situation there is no requirement of test identification parade to be conducted to believe their involvement. Moreover, it has been stated that the seizure of the arm has not been proved, however, it is well known fact and it is prevalent in the State that whenever an arm found in possession of a person a separate case is instituted and since the recovery was in village Bar, which is under the jurisdiction of Aurangabad, hence, the case instituted under Aurangabad jurisdiction regarding recovery of fire arm whereas the session‟s case was continuing under the jurisdiction of Rohtas and for that reason those documents may not been proved and the prosecution regarding kidnapping can not be said to have been disbelieved nor is a ground to disbelieve the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 5 as well as evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 8 regarding the implication of these four appellants in the crime. However, much reliance has been placed by the appellants 27 regarding the evidence of P.W. 3 that he gave statement in Kotwali and he has further stated that he has stated the name of the criminals. In paragraph 46 of the evidence he has specifically stated that he himself identified the appellants and Daroga has not disclosed him anything. He brought him before the accused persons and then he identified.
32. The defence has placed reliance in paragraph 42 of the evidence of P.W. 3 that at the time the recovery was made he did not disclose the name of any accused persons and in the way also he did not disclose about the occurrence of the criminals, however, after the recovery, the police returned back to Patna as it has come that it was a naxal infested area and so they may have immediately returned back and if the statement was not taken at the spot there was no occasion to make the statement, but, on return the statement was immediately given and there is nothing to disbelieve the testimony regarding identification and, hence, there was no occasion to conduct the test identification parade.
33. Hence, having regard to the facts and circumstances, there is nothing in the submission to disbelieve the evidence of the witnesses, therefore, I find and hold that the prosecution has been able to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubts regarding the complicity of these four appellants in the crime.
34. The learned counsel for the appellant, Desh Deepak Kumar Vihangam (Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 618 of 2006), however, submitted that this appellant is said to have arrested at Patna Medical College & Hospital along with Kanhaiya Lal. After the arrest of Desh 28 Deepak Kumar Vihangam, since, he was a suspect no step was taken to conceal the face for conducting the test identification parade and his identification by P.W. 1 at the Police Station is a complete violation of rule of identification. It has further been contended that Desh Deepak Kumar Vihangam was arrested on 10th March, 2006, but, he was produced before the Magistrate on 14th March, 2006, and during the period the prosecution manufactured several documents and, hence, his custody beyond twenty four hours must be deemed to be illegal detention and this illegal detention for deciding and manufacturing documents for his false implication and the entire seizure list and the documents during this period from 10th to 14th March, 2006, are manufactured documents. Neither a memorandum of arrest was prepared not when he was arrested at Patna Medical College & Hospital, he was kept at Peerbahore Police Station under whose jurisdiction the Patna Medical College & Hospital falls rather he was taken to Kotwali Police Station, just to manufacture the theory for his false implication and there is no valid explanation for his detention and not producing him either before a Magistrate at Patna or at Dehri or in Aurangabad.
35. However, taking into consideration the submissions, the situation of the crime is of kidnapping, the victims were in captivity of kidnappers, once the ransom amount was taken by the appellants, again, a demand was made for the release of the two victims and in such a situation the raid conducted and it has come in evidence that there was direction by the Superintendent of Police that in conducting a trap no risk of the life of Dr. Amitabh Sinha or a zero risk to the victims or the son of the victim who 29 was sent with rupees five lacs, as commanded by the kidnappers. There is no case that in first information report the kidnappers‟ face were known to the prosecution party and after the suspicion having raised two persons arrested and during investigation P.W. 1 was called and at that time it was not known that this was the person amongst the kidnappers who has received the ransom. Moreover, the appellant Desh Deepak Kumar Vihangam disclosed the police that if he would not reach village Bar where victims kept in captivity then his associates will kill the victims in captivity. It was a case of organized crime, several persons were involved in it, their lives were at stake and the moment it would have revealed to other accused persons that one of their associates has been arrested or caught by the police, naturally apprehension may have been to kill the victims and they would have fled away. Hence, in such situation conducting the test identification parade and other formalities does not appear to be in the interest of justice and it was the foremost duty to protect the lives of the victims, who were under the hands of the criminals and it was prudent to immediately make the raid as evident from the evidence of P.W. 4 in paragraph 11, hence, the situation demands not to spend time in formalities. It has been alleged that these recoveries are forged and fabricated. It can well be imagined that a large number of documents and other things having been recovered and lot of time have been taken for making search and seizure after due verification and there is explanation for the delay. The recovery of rupees six lacs, itself, suggests honest efforts by the prosecution culminating the recovery of the culprits, victims and the ransom amount. 30 Hence, I do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and the prosecution has been able to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubts.
36. The learned counsel for appellants, Ramjee Prajapati of Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 614 of 2006 and Abhay Kumar @ Pappu of Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 743 of 2006, submits that there was complicity in the crime is found because they involved to have talked with telephone no. 06184-264096 and mobile no. 9341897301 said to be of the appellants, but, no paper on the part of the ownership of those numbers have been brought or proved as these two phones were used to have contacted with the mobile of the victims when the said mobile was in possession of the kidnappers and further to prove the conspiracy it must have to be established under Section 10 of the Evidence Act, which is a condition precedent to prove that each of the conspirator has knowledge of conspiracy and for which has relied upon decisions reported in A.I.R. 1988 S.C., 1883 (Kehar Singh & Ors. Vrs. The State [Delhi Admn.]), (1996) 4 S.C.C., 659 (State of Maharashtra & Ors. Vrs. Som Nath Thapa & Ors.) and A.I.R. 2002 S.C., 340 (Prakash Dhawal Khairnar (Patil) Vrs. State of Maharashtra), hence, the basic point raised that a prima facie case of conspiracy has to be established for application of Section 10 of the Evidence Act to draw an inference for act done by one conspirator be the act of the kidnapping as there is no evidence of direct involvement of the two appellants in the crime of kidnapping.
37. Having regard to the fact, as discussed above, almost the entire evidence collected in the case and it has come in evidence the 31 victim who were kidnapped has got his mobile bearing no. 9431028412 and after kidnapping the said mobile came in the hands of the kidnapers who used the mobile for demand of ransom and the print out of the said mobile for a period during captivity suggest communication with mobile no. 9431897301 and telephone no. 06184-264096, which is the land line of the said appellant and P.W. 8 has stated in the evidence the mobile number being of Ramjee Prajapati and the mobile number is in the name of Abhay Kumar @ Pappu. It is established that there was transmission of thought between the kidnappers and these appellants during the period when the victims were in the captivity of the kidnappers. It may be pointed that generally a conspiracy hatched in secrecy and it is very difficult to adduce direct evidence and the prosecution has, ultimately, go for the circumstantial evidence. However, the conspiracy requires some kinds of agreement, but, it is difficult to prove this agreement which is amongst the kidnappers and conspirator, however, under the facts and circumstances once it is established that during the kidnaping there was communication between the appellants and the kidnappers and there is transmission of thoughts. It is also prudent that these two appellants were the son of the Compounder, but, they did not came and disclose the fact about the talks with kidnappers to the prosecution party or to the family members of Dr. Shashi Kumar Sinha. One of them who on the date of kidnapping came from Tilauthu to the house at Dehri to disclose and express about the kidnapping as apparent from the evidence of the informant and this communication was kept concealed. Further in the decision relied upon 32 A.I.R. 1988 S.C., 1883 (supra) there is express view that "the express agreement, however, need not be proved. Only actual meeting of two persons is not necessary. Nor it is necessary to prove the actual words of communication the evidence is of transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful design may be sufficient". It has come out in evidence about the communication between the kidnappers and the appellants as the appellants‟ telephone was being used prima facie establishes the exchange of thoughts and this proves conspiracy, hence, under the facts and circumstances I find and hold that the prosecution has been able to establish the charge under Section 364A read with 120B of the Penal Code as there is clear evidenced in the deposition of P.W. 8 that during the captivity talk with two mobile of the appellants and the mobile of the victim, Dr. Shashi Kumar Sinha, which was in possession of the kidnappers was used for communication for sufficient time as apparent from the evidence of P.W. 8 from paragraph 25.
38. So far the case of Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Gupta of Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 615 of 2006 is concerned, only evidence against him is that his name has been stated by Dr. Shashi Kumar Sinha. Name of Santosh Kumar has not found place in the evidence of P.W. 1 or 2. However, P.W. 3 has stated that the kidnappers were talking amongst them as Deepak, Saha, Surendra and Sunil, but, the name of Santosh is found to be fifth name. However, there is no circumstantial evidence regarding the identification of Santosh by P.Ws. 1 or 2 and that the suggestion has been given about false implication of Santosh. However, there is no evidence regarding express identification of Santosh. The name of this appellant has 33 not come in the evidence of any witness. He has stated that Santosh, Abhay and Pappu were telling that they were instrumental in crime, but, there is no evidence that what part was performed by this appellant, the identity of Santosh has also not been established. P.W. 4 has also not named him though the name of Santosh Kumar has come during the investigation, but, there is no reliable evidence regarding the implication and identification of accused, Santosh Kumar, and only evidence relating to Santosh Kumar about the recovery of a mobile and further in the hands of P.W. 8 in paragraph 68 has stated that one Santosh Yadav is son of Dashrath Yadav having residence at Barauni, but, the accused in this case is Santosh Gupta and has stated that when he enquired about Santosh Yadav then he could not reply and, hence, the learned counsel for the appellant, Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Gupta, submits that even the identification of Santosh is a mistaken identification and even no test identification parade or identification in Court conducted and the parental name also differ. However, none of the witnesses has identified Santosh in the dock, hence, from the nature of the evidence against him it is not very clear and the appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt. Hence, I find and hold that the prosecution has not been able to establish the charge against the appellant, Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Gupta of Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 615 of 2006.
39. Hence, Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 615 of 2006 is hereby allowed and the order of conviction and sentence against appellant, Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Gupta is hereby set aside.
34
40. However, the Criminal Appeals against other appellants are concerned, since the prosecution has been able to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubts, hence, there is no merit in these Criminal Appeals and the order of conviction and sentence against all the appellants is hereby confirmed and the Criminal Appeals are dismissed.
( Gopal Prasad, J. )
Shyam Kishore Sharma, J. I agree.
(Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.)
The Patna High Court,
The 20th day of May, 2010,
N.A.F.R./S.A.