Patna High Court
Hari Shahi vs State Of Bihar on 17 January, 2014
Author: V.N. Sinha
Bench: V.N. Sinha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.905 of 2007
(Against the judgment of conviction dated 12.06.2007 and
order of sentence dated 15.06.2007, passed by 4th Additional
Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in Sessions Trial No. 183/2003)
===========================================================
Hari Shahi, son of late Parmeshwar Shahi, resident of Mohalla Rahul Nagar, P.S.
Brahmpura, District Muzaffarpur
.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
.... .... Respondent
With
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1048 of 2007
===========================================================
Amod Singh, son of late Sajjan Singh, resident of Village Belwar, P.S. Belsar,
District Vaishali.
.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
.... .... Respondent/s
With
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1051 of 2007
===========================================================
Vishwaranjan Singh, son of Sri Ramsworth Singh, resident of Village Bhilwara
Rupnath, P.S. Saraia, District Muzaffarpur
.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
.... .... Respondent/s
With
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1052 of 2007
===========================================================
Abdhesh Thakur, son of late Ram Ashish Thakur, resident of Village Azizpur, P.S.
Saraiya, District Muzaffarpur
.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
.... .... Respondent/s
With
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1054 of 2007
===========================================================
Nandlal Sah @ Nandawa, son of Khakhan Sah, resident of village Bahilwara
Rupnath, P.S. Saraia, District Muzaffarpur
.... .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar
.... .... Respondent/s
With
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 2
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1292 of 2007
===========================================================
Ajit Kumar Mishra, son of Amod Mishra, resident of Lohsari, P.S. Bochahan,
district Muzaffarpur
.... .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar
.... .... Respondent
With
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1449 of 2007
===========================================================
Bhola Singh, son of Kedar Singh, resident of Village Chakbaaj, P.S. Vaishali,
district Vaishali.
.... .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar
.... .... Respondent
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellants : Mr. Vishwanath Prasad Sinha, Senior Advocate.
Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Senior Advocate
Mr. Rajendra Narayan, Senior Advocate.
Mr. Yugal Kishore, Advocate.
Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Advocate.
Mr. Lakshmi Kant Tiwary, Advocate.
Mr. Sumit Kumar Pandey, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sinha, A.P.P.
Mr. S.C. Mishra, A.P.P.
Mr. D.K.Sinha, A.P.P.
Ms. Shashibala Verma, A.P.P.
Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, A.P.P.
Mr. Ajay Mishra, A.P.P.
For the father of the
deceased : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Advocate.
Mr. Surinder Kumar, Advocate.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Advocate.
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.N. SINHA
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.N. SINHA)
Date: 17 -01-2014
V.N.Sinha,J. These seven appeals are directed against the judgment
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 3
of conviction dated 12.06.2007 and order of sentence dated
15.06.2007, passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in Sessions Trial No. 183/2003, whereunder the 7 appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 120(B)/34, 364(A)/34, 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code with further direction to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life, 5 years under Sections 120-B/34, 364 (A)/34, 302/34 and 201/34 I.P.C. respectively. They have also been directed to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each for their conviction under Sections 364(A)/34, 302/34 I.P.C. In default of payment of fine, they have been directed to suffer simple imprisonment for one year. For their conviction under Section 201/34 I.P.C., these appellants have also been directed to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for 4 months. Appellants Awdhesh Thakur, Bhola Singh and Amod Singh have further been convicted for the offence under Sections 379, 411 of the Indian Penal Code and have been directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years under both the counts. The sentences have, however, been directed to run concurrently.
2. The prosecution case, as set out in the written report of Hari Shahi dated 1.2.2003 (Ext. 5), addressed to the Officer in Charge of Brahmpura Police Station, is that he is a resident of Rahul Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 4 Nagar locality within Brahmpura P.S. in the district of Muzaffarpur. His nephew Raj Kumar Shahi @ Babloo, son of Shiv Shankar Shahi, resident of Sanjay Cinema Road within Brahmpura P.S. in the district of Muzaffarpur was enticed away yesterday i.e. 31.01.2003 around 5 P.M. on a rickshaw by his tenant Rajeev Kumar Singh, son of Kaushlendra Prasad Singh of Rampur, Sitamarhi on the pretext of opening account with Sahara India as his nephew served as Agent of Sahara India, who has not returned home so far. Hectic search was made to trace the victim but he was not found. It is being learnt about the tenant Rajeev Kumar Singh that his credentials are not good. Father of the victim is engaged in his business activity at Calcutta. In the penultimate paragraph of the written report Hari Shahi claimed that his nephew Raj Kumar Shahi @ Babloo has been enticed and abducted by his tenant Rajeev Kumar Singh for ransom. In the last paragraph of the written report, request was made to the Officer in Charge to take appropriate action in the matter.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid written report (Ext. 5), Brahmpura P.S. Case No. 20/03 dated 1.2.2003 (Ext. 8), for the offence under Section 364(A) of the Indian Penal Code, was registered by Chandeshwar Prasad Yadav, Officer in Charge of Brahmpura P.S. with endorsement that he will himself investigate the case.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 5
4. During investigation, Investigating Officer arrested Arun Kumar Pandey, Deepak Kumar Shahi on 27.02.2003 and 1.5.2003 respectively and submitted charge-sheet dated 20.05.2003 for the offence under Sections 364(A), 120(B)/ 34 I.P.C. against Arun Kumar Pandey and Deepak Kumar Shahi (both acquitted during trial) citing (1) Hari Shahi (2) Shiv Shankar Shahi (3) Mukesh Shahi (4) Smt. Geeta Shahi (5) Satish Kumar Shahi (6) Ramakant Sukla @ Munna as witnesses keeping further investigation pending. The Investigating Officer arrested informant Hari Shahi on 25.06.2003 and submitted 2nd charge-sheet on 19.09.2003 for the offence under Sections 364(A), 120(B) I.P.C. against him citing (1) Shiv Shankar Shahi (2) Krishna Mohan Kumar (3) Ramakant Sukla @ Munna Sukla as witnesses. Investigating Officer then arrested Shailendra Rai @ Shailendra Singh and appellants Vishwaranjan Singh, Nandlal Sah @ Nandwa and Ajit Kumar Mishra on 13.08.2003, 17.09.2003, 20.10.2003 and 23.10.2003 respectively and submitted 3rd charge-sheet dated 20.11.2003 for the offence under Sections 364(A) 302, 201, 120(B) I.P.C. against Shailendra Rai @ Shailendra Singh (acquitted) and appellants Vishwaranjan Singh, Nandlal Sah @ Nandwa and Ajit Kumar Mishra after recovery of the dead body of Raj Kumar Shahi @ Babloo on 29.10.2003 citing (1) Shiv Shankar Shahi (2) Geeta Shahi (3) Puran Rai (4) Bharat Sah (5) Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 6 Dr. Mumtaz Ahmad as witnesses. The 2nd Investigating Officer arrested appellants Bhola Singh, Awdhesh Thakur, Amod Singh on 7.2.2004, 7.2.2004 and 2.4.2004 respectively and submitted 4th charge-sheet on 4.5.2004 for the offence under Sections 364(A), 302, 201, 120(B) I.P.C. against Bhola Singh, Awdhesh Thakur, Amod Singh citing (1) Mukesh Shahi (2) Sandeep Kumar Shahi (3) Raghunath Shahi (4) Ram Naresh Shahi and (5) Saroj Kumar as witnesses.
5. During trial, prosecution party, in order to support the charge, examined 14 witnesses, namely, P.W. 1 Ramakant Shukla @ Munna Sukla, P.W. 2 Saroj Kumar, P.W. 3 Krishna Mohan Kumar, P.W. 4 Satish Kumar Shahi @ Sonu Shahi, P.W. 5 Ram Naresh Shahi, P.W. 6 Mukesh Kumar Shahi @ Mukesh Shahi, brother of the deceased, P.W. 7 Dr. Mumtaz Ahmad, who conducted post mortem on the dead body of the victim, P.W. 8 Sandeep Kumar Shahi, P.W. 9 Smt. Geeta Devi, mother of the deceased, P.W. 10 Shiv Shankar Shahi, father of the deceased, P.W. 11 Bishwanath Kumar Shukla, P.W. 12 Rabindar Kumar Shahi, P.W. 13 Ashok Kumar Pandey, 2nd Investigating Officer, who took charge of the investigation of the case on 24.11.2003 and submitted 4th charge- sheet dated 4.5.2004, P.W. 14 Chandeshwar Prasad Yadav, who served as Officer in Charge of Brahmpura P.S. on 1.2.2003 and Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 7 having received the written report of Hari Shahi, drew F.I.R. of Brahmpura P.S. Case No. 20/03 dated 1.2.2003 on 1.2.2003 (Ext. 8) and conducted investigation until 23.11.2003.
6. Defence also examined 3 witnesses, namely, D.W. 1 Chitranjan Singh, brother of appellant Vishwaranjan Singh, D.W. 2 Sundeshwar Singh, D.W. 3 Umesh Prasad Singh, both co-villagers of appellant Vishwaranjan Singh. D.W. 1 has stated that on 4.5.2003 at about 5.30 P.M. he was returning home from Malang Chowk on his bicycle. In the way he was overtaken by P.Ws. 6, 10 and one of their relatives as they stopped him and asked D.W. 1 that his brother Vishwaranjan is not cooperating with them by giving evidence, which is not good. D.W. 1 further stated in paragraph 2 of his evidence that on 24.06.2003 at about 5 P.M. he was in the forecourt of the house of his neighbour, heard alarm, came to his house and saw P.Ws. 6, 10 and three other persons, whom he could not identify, were indulging in scuffle with his brother Vishwaranjan. P.W. 10 assaulted his brother with brick causing injury on his temporal region. D.W. 1 further stated that P.W. 6 was holding a paper. Hearing the alarm others also came and identified P.Ws. 6, 10. He also stated that he can identify the signature of his brother Vishwaranjan, sister in law Rekha Kumari. D.W. 1 further stated that about the occurrence of assault on his brother, his sister in law filed Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 8 petition before the District Magistrate and he has come to court for recording his deposition along with his sister in law. D.W. 1 also identified the signature of his sister in law over the petition. D.W. 2 Sundeshwar Singh has stated in his evidence that he knows his co- villager Bishwanath Shukla who is a witness in this case. He is a seizure list witness and has identified his signature on one of the two seizure list prepared in this case but has asserted that neither purse etc. nor dead body was recovered in his presence. He has also stated that he recorded his first statement in court, prior thereto his statements were not recorded either by police officer or by Court. D.W. 3 Umesh Prasad Singh is postal peon. He has stated in his evidence that on 29.10.2003 at about 3 P.M. while returning from the post office he saw skeleton recovered from the burial ground situate near the orchard of Vishwaranjan, his own orchard which was not identified by any one. The skeleton was wrapped in a gunny bag and taken on jeep. He has also stated that he recorded his first statement in court, prior thereto his statements were not recorded either by the police officer or by Court.
7. Before proceeding to consider the merit of the prosecution case, conviction of the appellants, it is necessary to examine the evidence of 14 prosecution witnesses.
(i). P.W. 1 Ramakant Sukla @ Munna Sukla has stated Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 9 in his evidence that occurrence took place on 31.01.2003 when he was living as a tenant in the house of P.W. 10 Shiv Shankar Shahi located in Sanjay Cinema Road and even on date of deposition resides in the same house. P.W. 1 further stated that Shiv Shankar Shahi and his elder son Mukesh Kumar Shahi reside in Calcutta in connection with their business. P.W. 1 further stated that the house in which he resided as tenant is situate in Brahmpura locality. He further stated that wife of Shiv Shankar Shahi, Geeta Devi (P.W. 9), his younger son Babloo Shahi (victim), wife of Babloo Shahi along with her two children also resided in the same house. P.W. 1 has given the description of the house and has stated that he resides in the ground-floor of the house. P.W. 1 further stated that 13-14 days prior to the occurrence Rajeev Kumar Singh, son of Kaushlendra Prasad Singh of village Rampur, district Sitamarhi came to the house of P.W. 10 and approached Babloo and his mother Gita Devi (P.W. 9) for taking a portion of the house on rent. Babloo asked Rajeev Kumar Singh as to who will become his guarantor. Vishwaranjan, who was sitting there, identified Rajeev Kumar Singh as the one who is known to him and is a good man and recommended that he should be given a portion of the house on rent. On his recommendation two rooms in the house was given to Rajeev Kumar Singh on a monthly rental of Rs. 250/-. After obtaining tenancy Rajeev Kumar Singh Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 10 came to the house with his belongings and began to live in the portion given to him on rent. While living as a tenant Rajeev Kumar Singh was generally talking to Babloo alone. Babloo Shahi served as Agent of Sahara India. P.W. 1 further stated that on Friday 31.01.2003 Rajeev came to the house between 4-4.30 P.M. on a rickshaw calling for Babloo and went upstairs, asked Babloo that he has to deposit Rs. 25-30,000/- with Sahara India and for that purpose he should come along with him. At the request of Rajeev, Babloo went along with Rajeev on the same rickshaw but did not return.
P.W. 1 and others including P.W. 4 Satish Kumar Singh @ Sonu searched for Babloo but he was not traced. Rajeev Kumar Singh also never returned to the house. Next day mother of Babloo Shahi, P.W. 9 called her younger cousin brother in law Hari Shahi (appellant) who not only met her but also assured her that there is nothing to worry and that he shall report the matter to the police and will trace Babloo. Hari Shahi further told P.W. 9 that he shall also visit the house of Rajeev Kumar Singh along with police force and shall trace out Babloo. Later, information about disappearance of Babloo was given to his father at Calcutta and after receipt of such information P.W. 10 came to Muzaffarpur. After arrival of P.W. 10 ransom call was received. P.W. 1 further stated that after 24 days of the disappearance of Babloo, the jacket, which he was wearing at the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 11 time of his departure from the house along with letter asking for ransom was found by Satish Sahi @ Sonu Shahi in a polythene bag in the cattle shed (Bathan) of his parental house in village Gorigama. Satish Shahi @ Sonu Shahi came with the jacket and the letter to Muzaffarpur and gave to the father of Babloo. The leather jacket was identified by P.W. 1, mother, wife of Babloo and Randhir Kumar Verma, another tenant residing in the house of P.W. 10. P.W. 1 claimed that wearing the same jacket victim had gone for the last time along with Rajeev. The jacket, ransom letter was taken to the police station by the father of the victim along with P.W. 1 and was seized by the Officer in Charge vide seizure memo signed by Randhir Kumar Verma. P.W. 1 who identified the seizure memo, the signature of the two witnesses made over the same and then stated that the same was prepared in his presence, which is marked as Ext. 1 without objection. P.W. 1 further stated that after the incident Vishwaranjan was regularly coming to the house of the father of the victim and used to tell him that release of Babloo should be secured after making payment of ransom amount. P.W. 1 further stated that after 2 months of the occurrence Vishwaranjan came to the father of the victim and informed him that for securing release of his son money has to be paid and that he has seen Babloo in Chapra. According to P.W. 1 Vishwaranjan also informed P.W. 10 that one Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 12 day while he was returning from the house of P.W. 10 to his own house, he saw near Bibiganj-Muzaffarpur-Brahmpura railway crossing a Marshal vehicle in which few persons were sitting. The occupants of the vehicle made him also sit in the vehicle and asked him whether he is returning from the house of P.W. 10, having come to know that he was coming from the house of P.W. 10 took him to Chapra and made him meet Babloo and then dropped him at Chapra railway station. P.W. 1 further stated that father of the victim P.W. 10 believing the aforesaid statement of Vishwaranjan to be true agreed to make payment of Rs. 14 lakhs to the abductors for securing release of his son. P.W. 10 gave Rs. 14 lakhs in a bag to Vishwaranjan. The bag containing Rs. 14 lakhs was handed over to Satish Kumar Shahi @ Sonu, nephew of P.W. 10 Shiv Shankar Shahi in presence of Vishwaranjan. Vishwaranjan, however, stated that for payment of ransom money he will not go along with Satish, rather he will go with the elder son of P.W. 10 Mukesh Shahi. P.W. 1 further stated that for payment of ransom amount of Rs. 14 lakhs Vishwaranjan and Mukesh Shahi went. P.W. 1 further deposed that after making payment of ransom amount Mukesh Shahi and Vishwaranjan both came back and informed P.W. 10 that Babloo shall return in the evening. P.W. 1 further stated that he was also informed by Mukesh that ransom amount was paid to two abductors Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 13 near Fakuli Canal Bridge after the two abductors stopped them and demanded the amount. P.W. 1 further stated that Babloo Shahi has not returned till date of his evidence. P.W. 1 also stated that after knowing the details police arrested and interrogated Vishwaranjan. During interrogation Vishwaranjan admitted that the real name of Rajeev Kumar Singh tenant is Ajit Kumar Mishra. P.W. 1 further stated that having seen Ajit Kumar Mishra he also realized that Ajit Kumar Mishra is the same tenant who earlier introduced himself as Rajeev. P.W. 1 also stated that after arrest Ajit Kumar Mishra disclosed the name of his other accomplice Nandlal Sah @ Nandwa. P.W. 1 further stated that Nandlal Sah was also arrested/ surrendered in Court, interrogated by the police. During interrogation Nandlal Sah @ Nandwa took the police to village Bahilwara where behind the house of Vishwaranjan Singh from the ridge of a mango orchard dead body of Babloo Sahi was exhumed along with his shoe, socks, pant, full-pant in presence of many persons including P.W. 1. P.W. 1 also identified the dead body of Babloo Shahi. P.W. 1 further stated in his evidence that on the disclosure made by Nandlal Sah, Bhola Singh and others were arrested. From the possession of Bhola Singh wrist watch of Babloo Shahi, with R. K. Shahi inscribed thereon, was recovered. Seizure list of the recovered watch was made through carbon process over which P.W. 1 and one another witness put their Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 14 signature. P.W. 1 also identified his signature over the seizure list, which was marked as Ext. 2. P.W. 1 further stated that father of victim, P.W. 10 was repeatedly sending his men to call his cousin Hari Shahi but he was not responding to the call. P.W. 1 further clarified that Hari Shahi was not asking him anything. In the last paragraph of his examination in chief, P.W. 1 identified all the persons present in the dock and further stated that he recorded his statement before the police authorities. In cross-examination, P.W. 1 has stated that he is native of village Baswaria within Motihari Muffasil P.S. in the district of East Champaran, is even now residing in the house of Babloo as a tenant. He has further stated that his wife is in service at Muzaffarpur from before the occurrence. P.W. 1 further stated that he recorded his statement before the police officer at the police station but does not remember the number of times his statement was recorded by the police. He has further refuted the suggestion that he left Muzaffarpur for Baswaria one week prior to the occurrence and then stated that occurrence took place in his presence and that he has not learnt about the occurrence from any one. He has further stated in cross-examination that tenant Rajeev @ Ajit was inducted as tenant after he was identified by Vishwaranjan and such statement was made by him to the police officer. P.W. 1 denied the suggestion that he has not paid rent for the last two years Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 15 to P.W. 10 and is supporting the prosecution as a witness just to help him. P.W. 1 further stated that Rajeev Kumar Singh had come to become tenant in the house of P.W. 10 on his own and was not called by Babloo. Suggestion to the contrary that such statement was not made to the police is incorrect. He also stated that father of Babloo came to Muzaffarpur after 5-6 days of the occurrence. P.W. 1 also confirmed that ransom call was coming to the father of the victim but he is unable to provide the date, day on which the ransom calls were received. P.W. 1 also asserted that he did identify the jacket of the deceased, which he had worn for the last time and was found at his Gorigama village residence. P.W. 1 also denied the suggestion that he has wrongly stated that Vishwaranjan Singh was asking P.W. 10 to secure release of his son by making payment of ransom amount. P.W. 1 also confirmed in his cross-examination that he had stated before the police that Vishwaranjan Singh stated before him that he was made to see Babloo by the abductors at Chapra. P.W. 1 also stated that on the basis of the statement made by Vishwaranjan that he had seen Babloo at Chapra, father of Babloo, P.W. 10 agreed to pay ransom amount of Rs. 14 lakhs and bag containing Rs. 14 lakhs was handed over to Sonu @ Satish Kumar Shahi in presence of Vishwaranjan. Vishwaranjan, however, declined to go along with Sonu and stated that he shall go with Mukesh Shahi (P.W. 6), elder Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 16 son of P.W. 10. P.W. 1 has also given the description of the bag in which Rs. 14 lakhs was kept for payment to the abductors. P.W. 1 has stated that he had not gone to Fakuli bridge where payment was made to the abductors. He further confirmed that he has stated before the police that for payment of the ransom amount, both Vishwaranjan and Mukesh had gone and after payment both returned and informed that Babloo shall return by the evening. P.W. 1 also confirmed that he was present at the time of recovery of the dead body, shoe, socks, full-pant of Babloo along with others, which was made at the instance of Nandlal Sah @ Nandwa and put his signature over the seizure list. It is incorrect to suggest that he was not present at the time of recovery of the dead body. He also declined the suggestion that he has given false evidence at the instance of P.W. 10. P.W. 1 also stated that he recorded his statement before the police on many occasions but he does not remember the date, time of recording the statements. P.W. 1 declined the suggestion that his statement was recorded only between 24.02.2003 to 24.06.2003 and further stated that his statement was recorded even beyond the aforesaid period. P.W. 1 also stated that address of tenant Rajeev was not verified as his guarantor was Vishwaranjan. He also stated that after arrest Vishwaranjan disclosed the real name of tenant Rajeev as Ajit Mishra, witness, however, does not remember the date of such Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 17 disclosure. P.W. 1 further stated that the dead body of Babloo was in highly decomposed state but was identified by its tooth. P.W. 1 stated that his first statement before the police was recorded after 3-4 days of the occurrence and denied the suggestion that his first statement was recorded on 24.06.2003 and then volunteered that before 24.06.2003 also his several statements were recorded. He also denied the suggestion that he recorded his police statement at the instance of P.W. 10 for the first time on 24.02.2003. He also clarified that his wife is serving as clerk in the Telephone Department. He also stated that Nandlal Sah had surrendered in Court, whereafter his police remand was obtained and then he made disclosure statement and took the police to village Bahilwara on 29.10.2003, where dead body of Babloo was exhumed from an orchard behind the house of Vishwaranjan. He also stated that in the light of the disclosure statement of Nandlal, Bhola Singh and others were arrested. In response to the Court question, P.W. 1 stated that other name of Babloo is Raj Kumar Shahi.
(ii). P.W. 2 Saroj Kumar has stated in his evidence that the occurrence took place 1¼ year earlier when he was at his village home Basra Kazi within Saraiya O.P. of Jaitpur P.S. He learnt about the occurrence through newspaper and came to the house of the victim Bablu @ Raj Kumar Shahi and there he met Vishwaranjan Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 18 along with others. Vishwaranjan informed P.W. 2 that Babloo has been abducted by Rajeev, who was inducted as a tenant in the house of Babloo 10-15 days earlier. Having confirmed about the occurrence P.W. 2 returned to his house. Second time P.W. 2 came to the house of the victim after about 1 month of the occurrence and on the same day, in his presence, abductors made telephone call, which was received by his uncle (Mausa) P.W 10, who during telephonic conversation with the abductors was heavily perspiring. P.W. 2 thereafter took the receiver from his uncle and made him sit. On the telephone the abductors were extending threat asserting that much time has lapsed, ransom money should be arranged expeditiously. P.W. 2 realized that the caller is a known person and perhaps Vishwaranjan. P.W. 2 claimed that he also informed his uncle (Mausa) that the ransom caller was perhaps Vishwaranjan. P.W. 2 further stated that his uncle (Mausa) became angry when he stated that the ransom caller was perhaps Vishwaranjan and stated that such could never be a fact as Vishwaranjan is his well-wisher. P.W. 2 further stated that third time he visited the house of his uncle (Mausa) after about 1 ½ months of his second visit to his house, on which date nothing special was happening but his uncle (Mausa) was talking to Vishwaranjan and having seen the two talking to each other P.W. 2 did not stay at the house of P.W. 10 for longer duration Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 19 and returned back to his house. After about 6-7 months of his third visit to the house of P.W. 10, P.W. 2 again came to Muzaffarpur and met Vishwaranjan at Bhagwanpur Chowk. P.W. 2 asked Vishwaranjan about the developments made in the case. P.W. 2 was informed by Vishwaranjan that his uncle (Mausa) is accusing, suspecting him for the occurrence. P.W. 2 having learnt about the accusation made by his uncle implicating Vishwaranjan, asked Vishwaranjan to come along with him and meet his uncle (Mausa) assuring Vishwaranjan that he would explain to his uncle P.W. 10 that when he (Vishwaranjan) was trying to assist him in tracing the victim why is he suspecting him. Vishwaranjan, however, declined to come along with P.W. 2 to the house of P.W. 10. P.W. 2 further stated that about 10 days earlier to the occurrence, he had come to the house of his Aunt (Mausi) (P.W. 9) in Brahmpura and saw Babloo Sahi talking to a boy who was addressing Babloo Shahi as „Bhaiya‟ (brother). P.W. 2 further stated that Babloo introduced the boy as his new tenant, whose name is Rajeev. P.W. 2 identified one accused in the dock as Rajeev, who stated in Court that his name is Ajit Kumar. P.W. 2 further stated in his evidence that in one of his visit to the house of his uncle (Mausa) he could learn that a talk was going on for making payment of ransom amount of Rs. 14 lakhs and the ransom amount was taken by P.W. 4 Mukesh Kumar, elder son of Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 20 P.W. 10 and Vishwaranjan for delivery to the abductors. Having made payment the two returned by 4-4.30 P.M. and stated that abductors would release Babloo by 8 P.M. Such information was given by Vishwaranjan. P.W. 2 lastly stated that Babloo had not returned till date. P.W. 2 identified all the accused persons in dock. P.W. 2 in his cross-examination admitted that he recorded his statement before the police on 7.3.2004 and then stated that he has not seen the occurrence himself but learnt about the same. P.W. 2 further stated that Vishwaranjan told him that one boy named Rajeev, who was inducted as tenant in the house 10-15 days before the occurrence, has committed this occurrence. P.W. 2 also stated that Vishwaranjan never disclosed the name of Ajit to the witness. He further stated that talk for payment of ransom amount was being made in his presence and that Vishwaranjan and Mukesh Shahi went for making payment of the ransom amount. P.W. 2 further stated that victim was little hard of hearing but was neither deaf nor foolish. P.W. 2 also stated that 10 days prior to the occurrence he had come to the house of his aunt (Mausi) in Brahmpura where Babloo was speaking to a person whom he introduced as his new tenant, named Rajeev. P.W. 2 also stated that he met Rajeev only once i.e. 10 days prior to the occurrence and thereafter in the Court while recording his evidence and then denied the suggestion that he has wrongly Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 21 identified Ajit Kumar Mishra. He also denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely in the case on the basis of information gathered from his uncle and aunt (Mausa and Mausi).
(iii). P.W. 3 Krishna Mohan Kumar is also a tenant in the house of P.W. 10 Shiv Shankar Shahi. He has stated that the occurrence took place on 31.01.2003 around 5 P.M. when he was drawing water in front of the house and saw Babloo going along with Rajeev on a rickshaw. He further stated that Rajeev was also a tenant in the house of P.W. 10. At the time of their departure by rickshaw Rajeev was telling Babloo that he has to deposit money of his relative with Sahara India, for which he should come soon as the deposit will benefit him also. P.W. 3 identified Rajeev in the dock and stated that till the date of his deposition Babloo has not returned. He also stated that Rajeev has also not returned to the house. Rajeev was inducted as a tenant in the house 15 days earlier of the occurrence. Earlier to the present occurrence nothing has happened between P.W. 10 and the tenant(s). P.W. 3 further stated that 1 day prior to the occurrence he had gone to take milk from Sudha Milk Booth near Sanjay Cinema Hall and having taken milk went to the adjoining betel shop, where he saw 6-7 persons talking to each other, amongst them he identified Rajeev, Hari Shankar Shahi and Vishwaranjan and the three are present in the dock. P.W. 3 clarified Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 22 that as he was at some distance from the persons present on the betel shop, he could not hear their conversation. P.W. 3 in his cross- examination has admitted that his police statement was recorded on 24.06.2003 and further asserted that he is tenant in the house of the victim from 2001 on payment of rent of Rs. 200/- per month. He also denied the suggestion that he has come to depose after accepting money from his landlord. P.W. 3 also stated that he is known to Hari Shahi from long time before who is ward member and he did vote for him in the municipal election without accepting any money from him. He further stated that he exchanged greetings with Hari Shahi as and when the two come across each other. P.W. 3 further stated that one day prior to the occurrence he had gone to bring milk, saw 6-7 persons talking to each other, amongst the 6-7 persons he could identify Rajeev, Hari Shahi and Vishwaranjan. He further stated that at the time of occurrence P.W. 10 was at Calcutta and returned to Muzaffarpur 4-5 days after the occurrence. P.W. 3 also stated that he saw Rajeev as a tenant in the house of the victim. He further stated that after 31.01.2003 he has seen Rajeev for the first time in Court at the time of his deposition. P.W. 3 has also given the description, location of the house of the victim. P.W. 3 also denied the suggestion that he has given false evidence as he is a tenant in the house of P.W. 10 and that he has falsely deposed after taking money from P.W. 10. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 23
(iv). P.W. 4 Satish Kumar Shahi @ Sonu Shahi is the nephew of P.W. 10 and cousin of the victim. He has stated in his evidence that the occurrence took place on 31.01.2003 at about 5 P.M. when he was present in Brahmpura house of his uncle P.W. 10. Just before the occurrence Rajeev Kumar, tenant in the house of P.W. 10 came and asked Babloo Bhaiya that he has to deposit money of his relative with Sahara India as Babloo Bhaiya was an Agent in Sahara India. Rajeev further requested Babloo Bhaiya to come to Bhagwanpur for depositing the amount. According to P.W. 4 Rajiv and Babloo both went together on a rickshaw to deposit the amount but did not return. P.W. 4 and others thereafter searched for them but the two could not be traced during the night. In the morning Hari uncle came and lodged the case. 4-5 days after the occurrence father of Babloo, P.W. 10 Shiv Shankar Shahi returned from Calcutta and thereafter ransom call was received. Rajeev was residing in the house of Babloo Bhaiya as a tenant for the last 15 days of the occurrence. Rajeev had come alone to take the house of Babloo Bhaiya on rent in presence of P.W. 4. According to P.W. 4, Babloo informed Rajeev that one room in the house is vacant and if he has a guarantor he will be inducted as a tenant in the house. 20-25 minutes prior to the arrival of Rajeev, Vishwaranjan had come to the house of Babloo. During the conversation between Rajeev and Babloo for grant of Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 24 tenancy Vishwaranjan informed Babloo that Rajeev is a right person as earlier he was also tenant in the house of Hari uncle. P.W. 4 further stated that on the certification of Vishwaranjan, Babloo inducted Rajeev as a tenant in his house. Rajeev disclosed his name as Rajeev Kumar Singh, son of Kaushlendra Prasad Singh of village Rampur, district Sitamarhi. P.W. 4 identified both Rajeev and Vishwaranjan in the dock. P.W. 4 further stated that after arrival of his uncle, P.W. 10 from Calcutta ransom call began coming. According to P.W. 4 Vishwaranjan used to ask his uncle P.W. 10 to make payment, failing which his son will be killed. After 23-24 days of the occurrence P.W. 4 had come to his village home. In the morning P.W. 4 went to his cattle-shed, saw on the dry foliage of gourd a polythene packet. Having noticed the packet P.W. 4 called his father, uncle Rama Shankar Shahi, after their arrival in presence of other neighbours and on their instruction opened the polythene packet and found leather jacket of his brother Babloo which he was wearing on 31.01.2003 at the time of his departure along with a threatening letter. Having found the jacket, threatening letter P.W. 4 along with his father and uncle Rama Shankar Shahi came to the house of his uncle P.W. 10 at Brahmpura. The jacket was identified by P.W. 9, who happens to be aunt (chachi) and Mausi of P.W. 4 as also by the wife of Babloo Bhaiya that the jacket belongs to Babloo. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 25 Having seen the jacket P.W. 4 and others began to cry. After sometime P.W. 4, his uncle P.W. 10, his father and another uncle Rama Shankar Shahi along with others went to the police station where the jacket and the threatening letter was seized and seizure list prepared before him, which was also signed by Randhir Verma and Ramakant Sukla (P.W. 1) as witness. Police statement of P.W. 4 was also recorded on that day also. P.W. 4 further stated that Vishwaranjan was regularly coming to the house of his uncle P.W. 10 and asking him to arrange money for payment, failing which his son will be killed. P.W. 4 further stated that his uncle was asking Vishwaranjan that payment shall be made only after he is sure of evidence in this regard. P.W. 4 further stated that 2 months after the occurrence Vishwaranjan came to the house of his uncle between 10- 10.30 A.M. and informed him that he has seen Bablooji. Vishwaranjan also informed his uncle that he was abducted by the abductors near Bibiganj railway crossing and taken to Chapra and then left at Chapra railway station. The abductors made him meet Babloo. Vishwaranjan, however, could not indicate the place where he met Babloo. P.W. 4 further stated that after learning from Vishwaranjan that he has met Babloo at Chapra his uncle P.W. 10 agreed to make payment of the ransom amount. 2-3 days after P.W. 10 became ready to make payment of ransom amount to the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 26 abductors P.W. 4, Mukesh Bhaiya P.W. 6 and Vishwaranjan came down from the house of P.W. 10 with the ransom money to make payment to the abductors. After coming down Vishwaranjan asked P.W. 4 not to come along with him for making payment to the abductors as only P.W. 6 will accompany him for payment. Vishwaranjan and Mukesh went on a motorcycle to make payment of ransom amount to the abductors. According to P.W. 4 Vishwaranjan and Mukesh after payment to the abductors returned around 4-5 P.M. After payment Vishwaranjan informed P.W. 10 that Babloo shall return by 8 P.M. P.W. 4 also stated that Babloo has not returned till date of his evidence. According to P.W. 4 Vishwaranjan was arrested after about 7-8 months of payment made to the abductors. After arrest Vishwaranjan disclosed the real name of tenant Rajeev as Ajit Kumar Mishra, son of Amod Mishra, resident of village Lohsari, P.S. Bochahan, district Muzaffarpur. P.W. 4 also stated that after 7-8 months of the occurrence from near a mango orchard behind the house of Vishwaranjan purse containing Identity Card, socks of the victim Raj Kumar Shahi @ Babloo Shahi was recovered. Sometime later from a place adjacent to the place wherefrom purse, socks of Babloo was recovered, his dead body was exhumed. The dead body could be recovered after police interrogated Vishwaranjan and Rajeev @ Ajit Kumar Mishra. Thereafter Nandwa @ Nandlal, driver Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 27 of the vehicle was arrested and interrogated, who disclosed that he along with his other accomplice killed Babloo and buried his dead body near the house of Vishwaranjan. P.W. 4 further stated that from a place adjacent to the place wherefrom the dead body of Babloo was exhumed, his shoe, socks, full pant was also recovered, which is also found buried beneath the ground. Nandlal has also disclosed the place where the dead body was buried. P.W. 4 further stated that he along with Mukesh Bhaiya (P.W. 6) and Ravindra Bhaiya had gone to Kanti Block for identifying the purse, shoe, socks and full pant. P.W. 4 further stated that identification chart was made by carbon process on which P.W. 4 also put his signature as a witness and identified the same as Ext. 3. He also stated that besides him Ravindra Bhaiya and Mukesh Bhaiya also put their signature over the same. P.W. 4 further stated that during investigation of the case his uncle P.W. 10 used to ask him to call Hari uncle but he was not coming and always saying that he has many works. P.W. 4 also stated that police was also looking for Hari uncle. P.W. 4 claimed that he identified all the witnesses present in dock. P.W. 4 in his cross examination has stated that his uncle P.W. 10 returned to Muzaffarpur from Calcutta on 4.2.2003 and on that day he was at Muzaffarpur. He has stated that he had gone to village Bahilwara and had seen the house of Vishwaranjan but is not aware about the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 28 boundary of his house. P.W. 4 further confirmed that the dead body of the victim was exhumed behind the house of Vishwaranjan from near a dry canal which is at a distance of half kilometer south. P.W. 4 also stated that for searching Babloo and Rajeev he had gone to Bhagwanpur as before leaving both were saying that they are going to the office of Sahara India situate in Bhagwanpur. P.W. 4 also stated that the two could not be traced, he returned to Brahmpura house of the victim. P.W. 4 further stated that he recorded his police statement on 3-4 occasions and named Vishwaranjan. He also stated that he deposed before the police officer that the date on which Rajeev was inducted as tenant Vishwaranjan had come to the house of Babloo 20-25 minutes earlier and on the recommendation of Vishwaranjan Rajeev was inducted as tenant as he recommended that he is a good man and was earlier tenant in the house of Hari uncle. He further denied the suggestion that he has not stated before the police officer that Rajeev was inducted as tenant 25-30 days prior to the occurrence at the instance of Babloo Bhaiya himself and asserted that he was inducted as tenant 15 days earlier in that portion of the house which has tiled roof. He also stated that he has informed the police officer that Rajeev disclosed his name as Rajeev Kumar Singh, son of Shailendra Prasad Singh of village Rampur, district Sitamarhi. P.W. 4 further stated that in his police statement he did Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 29 state that after arrival of his uncle from Calcutta ransom call began coming. P.W. 4 also stated that Vishwaranjan was asking his uncle to pay the ransom amount failing which his son will be killed. He further asserted in his cross-examination that he disclosed in his police statement that when he saw articles wrapped in a polythene packet kept on the roof of his cattle shed then he called his father, uncle Rama Shankar Shahi and other neighbours and on their instruction unfolded the articles wrapped in the polythene packet. He also stated that having unfolded the polythene found a jacket which Babloo Bhaiya had worn on the date of his departure 31.01.2003 and refuted the suggestion that having seen the jacket witness and others were not weeping. P.W. 4 further denied the suggestion that claim of identifying the jacket was thought after coming to Brahmpura Muzaffarpur. P.W. 4 also stated that along with his father two uncles and others came to police station and handed over the jacket and the threatening letter to the police officer. P.W. 4 further confirmed that jacket was also identified by the mother, wife of the victim. The two also asserted that jacket belongs to Babloo, whereafter P.W. 4 and those identified the jacket all began weeping. P.W. 4 further stated that he has informed the police officer that Vishwaranjan was regularly coming to the house of P.W. 10 and asking him to arrange money and to pay the abductors, failing which they shall kill his son. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 30 He also confirmed that his uncle (father of victim) used to say that he shall pay only after proof is shown to him. P.W. 4 further stated that after two months of the occurrence one day Vishwaranjan came to the house of his uncle at about 10-10.30 A.M. and informed him that he has come after having seen Babloo as he (Vishwaranjan) was abducted in Marshall vehicle near Bibiganj railway crossing and was dropped at Chapra railway. P.W. 4 further stated that the aforesaid fact he disclosed to the police officer. P.W. 4 also stated that he informed the police officer that in the light of the aforesaid assertion of Vishwaranjan his uncle agreed to pay the ransom amount. P.W. 4 also gave the description of the cotton bag in which ransom amount was kept for delivery together with the motorcycle and the dikky in which the same was taken. P.W. 4 denied the suggestion that the bag was not carried in the dikky of the motorcycle. P.W. 4 further stated that he did inform the police officer that ransom amount was arranged within 2-3 days of the arrival of Vishwaranjan from Chapra. P.Ws. 4, 6 and Vishwaranjan came down in the house of P.W. 10 with the bag containing ransom amount. Vishwaranjan then asked P.W. 4 not to come with him for payment of ransom amount to the abductors and stated that along with him only Mukesh (P.W. 6) shall come for payment, whereafter both Vishwaranjan and Mukesh went on a motorcycle for payment of ransom amount to the abductors. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 31 Having paid the amount both P.Ws. 6, 10 returned between 4-5 P.M. and thereafter Vishwaranjan informed P.W. 10 that Babloo shall return by 8 P.M. P.W. 4 further asserted that he informed the police officer that Vishwaranjan was arrested after 7-8 months of the occurrence and then he disclosed the real name of tenant Rajeev as Ajit Kumar Mishra, son of Amod Mishra of village Lohsari, P.S. Bochahan, district Muzaffarpur. P.W. 4 also denied the suggestion that he has wrongly stated about the existence of orchard behind the house of Vishwaranjan. He further denied the suggestion that he has wrongly stated about the factum of having seen the house of Vishwaranjan. He further stated that he did inform the police that after 7-8 months of the occurrence one gents purse, socks was dug out from the place adjacent to the orchard behind the house of Vishwaranjan. The purse contained an identity card of the victim. P.W. 4 also confirmed that the dead body which was exhumed had hair, flesh in the back but the same was identified by broken tooth as one of the upper tooth of Babloo Shahi was broken in the middle. P.W. 4 also stated that together with the dead body of Babloo his pant, shoe was also recovered. P.W. 4 denied the suggestion that he did not identify the dead body with the help of tooth of the deceased. He also declined the suggestion that the place from where the dead body of Babloo was recovered is neither a grave-yard nor cremation Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 32 ground. He also declined the suggestion that the skeleton was recovered and he has wrongly stated about the dead body having been exhumed. P.W. 4 also stated that Vishwaranjan was arrested from the house of his relative in village Ratanpur within Kanti block. P.W. 4 denied the suggestion that he stated before the police officer that dead body of victim was recovered at the instance of Vishwaranjan and Rajeev @ Ajit Kumar Mishra. P.W. 4 also stated that he informed the police officer that one shoe, socks, full-pant of Babloo was recovered from a place adjacent to the place where his dead body was recovered as the same was also buried there which he identified in Test Identification Parade conducted in the office of the Circle Officer, Kanti. P.W. 4 also denied the suggestion that it is incorrect to suggest that he has not put his signature over the Test Identification Chart prepared in the office of the Circle Officer, Kanti. P.W. 4 also confirmed that besides him, his brother Mukesh and Ravindar also put their signature over the Test Identification Chart and refuted the suggestion that Test Identification Parade was not conducted in the Block Office, Kanti. P.W. 4 further stated that investigation of the case continued for more than 8-9 months. He also stated that he recorded his statement before the Investigating Officer on 3-4 occasions; his first statement was recorded on 24.02.2003 when the jacket was found. P.W. 4, however, admitted Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 33 that he did not remember the date(s) of his other statements given to the police but asserted that he recorded his statements before only one police officer. P.W. 4 confirmed that he had the occasion to see Rajeev at Brahmpura Police Station after his arrest but does not remember the date and month of his arrest. P.W. 4 also could not give the boundary of the place from where the dead body was exhumed. He, however, has given the distance between his village Gorigama and Bahilwara as 3-4 kilometers. P.W. 4 confirmed that after the occurrence he spoke to Vishwaranjan, who is the co-brother (Sarhu) of his elder brother Sandeep Kumar Shahi (P.W. 8). He also stated that after Vishwaranjan was taken in custody he spoke to him. P.W. 4 also stated that he is not aware that after 10-15 days of the occurrence son in law of Hari Shahi committed suicide. He further confirmed that prior to the occurrence he was hardly visiting the house of Hari Shahi. P.W. 4 also stated that the last time he visited the house of Hari Shahi is the date on which his uncle returned from Calcutta and asked him to call Hari Shahi but he did not come. P.W. 4 further stated that Nandlal @ Nandwa surrendered in Court in connection with the present case and on the date of his surrender P.W. 4 was present in Court, although, he had no information about the fact that Nandlal is to surrender on that day.
(v). P.W. 5 Ram Naresh Shahi is resident of Gorigama Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 34 Dih, the parental village of the victim and his father P.W.10. He has stated in his evidence that 15-20 days after Holi, he was going with his tyre-cart loaded with straw to Mahua, district Vaishali for selling the straw as he is in the business of selling straw. After covering some distance, P.W. 5 suddenly felt stomach pain and parked his tyre-cart at Ajitpur Kothi, which is in way to Mahua. Looking for the medicine, P.W.5 went to the house of Dr. Awadhesh Thakur at about 8.30 P.M. and saw a white Ambassador car parked in front of the entrance. Inside the house of Dr. Thakur, lights were on and it appeared, 2-4 persons were talking. P.W.5 knocked at the window, then suddenly conversation going inside the room stopped and Dr. Thakur came out of the room holding torch, prior thereto the door and window of the house were closed. After Dr. Thakur came out of the room, the door of the room inadvertently remained open, P.W.5 could see inside the room a lantern lit on the table on which there were many currency notes kept together with liquor bottle. Liquor smell was also emanating from the room. P.W.5 also found those present in the room taking liquor. Dr. Thakur, however, asked P.W.5 as to why he has come. P.W.5 replied that he is suffering stomach pain. Dr. Thakur thereafter went inside the room to bring medicine. Out of curiosity P.W.5 peeped inside the room and saw six persons. Amongst the six persons, four, namely, Vishwaranjan Singh, Amod Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 35 Singh, Nandlal Driver and Dr. Awadhesh Thakur were known to the witness from before. About the two unknown, P.W. 5 claimed that he can identify them, if they are shown to him. P.W.5 thereafter identified in court the four persons whom he had seen and identified in the room and also identified Bhola present in the dock as one of the two unknown whom he had seen in the room. P.W.5 then stated that five out of the six persons seen by him in the room of Dr. Thakur are present in dock. He further clarified that sixth person seen by him in the room of Dr. Thakur is not present in the dock. Examination-in- chief of P.W. 5 was deferred to 24.08.2005. During his deposition on 24.08.2005 he identified Ajit Kumar as the sixth man seen by him in the room of Dr. Thakur. P.W.5 also claimed in his evidence that he had disclosed to the villagers that he had seen six persons assembled and taking liquor in the house of Dr. Thakur. He also claimed that he had made statement to the police. P.W. 5 in his cross-examination has stated that prior to the occurrence he has no acquaintance with Dr. Awadhesh Thakur. P.W. 5 further stated that the date on which he had seen six persons in the house of Dr. Thakur, prior thereto or thereafter, he never visited his house. P.W. 4 also stated that when he went to the house of Dr. Thakur none accompanied him and that Dr. Thakur gave him 4 tablets advising him to presently take two tablets and the other two in the morning. He also clarified that he had gone Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 36 to Dr. Thakur after passage of 15-20 days in the month of Falgun when the moon shine was for 2-4 hours and stayed there for 4-5 minutes but he does not remember the exact date of his visit to the house of Dr. Thakur. P.W. 4 also stated that on the date of his visit to the house of Dr. Thakur he was aware about the occurrence and then further clarified that he came to know about the occurrence from the time of Sarswati Puja as the occurrence took place 2-4 days prior to Sarswati Puja and 2-3 months prior to his visit to the house of Dr. Thakur. He also stated that he did not inform the parents of Babloo about the factum of having seen persons assembled in the house of Dr. Thakur but such fact was disclosed to his family member Raghunath Shahi and to the police while recording statement. He also stated that the accused persons seen by him in the house of Dr. Thakur were also seen by him afterwards, except Ajit whom he saw for the first time in the house of Dr. Thakur and thereafter in Court. P.W. 5 also disclosed that in his police statement he has stated that he can identify the accused persons but the police officer never asked him to participate in any Test Identification Parade. P.W. 5 further stated that he knew the family members of the deceased from before as they were not only his co-villagers but were also on visiting terms. P.W. 5 further clarified that father of the deceased as per village relation was his brother. P.W. 5 denied the suggestion that he Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 37 happens to be the uncle of the agnate of the deceased and to maintain such relationship he has given false evidence. P.W. 5 further clarified that Mahua where he was proceeding to sell the straw is on the south- east corner of village Gorigama. P.W. 5 also clarified that he is aware of the road connecting his village to Mahua via Supna market, Belaur Chowk but the said road is not fit for night travel. He also stated that Ajitpur Kothi is at a distance of about one Kos towards south from his village and further stated that three kilometer is equivalent to one Kos. He again clarified that Mahua is closer via Supna but one has to cross the canal and there is climb in the said road. P.W. 5 further stated that he learnt about the occurrence after 2 days and then went to meet P.W. 10 but he was not at Muzaffarpur as by then he had not returned from Calcutta. After his arrival from Calcutta P.W. 5 could not meet him as he was engaged in his own work. P.W. 5 also gave the description of the house of Dr. Thakur where he went after parking his tyre-cart. P.W. 5 has denied the suggestion that a case was instituted against him in the year 2003. P.W. 5 also denied the suggestion that he has taken a sum of Rs. 30,000/- from P.W. 10 in the year 2003. P.W. 5 also stated that when Dr. Thakur came outside the room there was light in the house. P.W. 5 also stated in his cross- examination that it is not a fact that being agnate of P.W. 10, he has given false evidence at his instance. P.W. 5 also stated that for the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 38 first time he informed Yogi Rai about the factum of having seen the accused persons in the house of Dr. Thakur but he does not remember the date on which he informed such fact to Yogi Rai. P.W 5 also stated that he did state before the police that Dr. Thakur came out of the room holding the torch though there was electric light in the room and the door remained open after he came out of the room. P.W. 5 also stated that after he knocked the window Dr. Thakur came out of the room and the door remained inadvertently open. P.W. 5 also claimed that he did state before the police that he identified 4 accused persons in the house of Dr. Thakur as he knew them by name from before and denied the suggestion that he named only one accused before the police and reiterated that he saw six accused persons in the room of Dr. Thakur. P.W. 5 also stated that he did not state before the police that after Dr. Thakur came out of his house the lights were switched off. P.W. 5 also confirmed that he did state before the police that he peeped into the room and saw four accused persons including Amod Singh and can identify the two unknown. P.W. 5 identified Bhola in Court and stated that about him he informed the police officer that he can identify him, if produced. P.W. 5 also stated that Dr. Thakur gave him medicine after listening about his ailment without touching his belly. P.W. 5 also stated that after receiving medicine from Dr. Thakur he did pay him the price of Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 39 medicine but not his fee. P.W. 5 also stated that for recording his statement he had gone to police station along with Raghu Shahi and his son Pappu but none of his other brothers were present in the police station from before. P.W. 5 also stated that he is not aware whether statement of Raghu Shahi and his son was recorded and he did not return from the police station with them. P.W. 5 also clarified that his statement was recorded in the police station in a room and not in the verandah. He further stated that name of Pappu is Sandeep Shahi and denied the suggestion that his statement was recorded along with the statement of Raghu Shahi and his son Pappu @ Sandeep Shahi. He also stated that sale of straw was made by him in the year 2003 but he does not remember the month, day on which such sale was made and further stated that he does not have any receipt of having sold the straw in the year 2003. P.W. 5 denied the suggestion that he has deposed in support of the prosecution after receiving money. P.W. 5 also denied the suggestion that he is not in business of selling straw. He further denied the suggestion that he has deposed in the case after being tutored and that his deposition is false.
(vi). P.W.6 Mukesh Kumar Shahi @ Mukesh Shahi is the elder brother of the victim, who on the date of occurrence was in Calcutta along with his father looking after the whole-sale business Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 40 concerning the electrical items. On the date of occurrence, his younger brother-victim Raj Kumar Shahi @ Babloo along with his mother, wife and children was residing in Brahmpura house and served as an agent of Sahara India. P.W.6 further stated that the information about the occurrence was given to him by his mother one day after the occurrence. At the time of receipt of the information about the occurrence, his father was advised bed-rest, as he was suffering from High Blood Pressure. After his condition improved, P.W.6 came to Muzaffarpur along with his father. After coming to Muzaffarpur, P.W.6 was informed by his mother that few days earlier a tenant, who disclosed his name as Rajiv Kumar Singh, son of Kaushlendra, resident of Sitamarhi, was inducted in the tiled house on the recommendation of Vishwaranjan. P.W.6 further stated that one day after his arrival from Calcutta, a ransom call was received from unknown person informing that Babloo is in custody of the caller and heavy amount should be arranged for securing his release. P.W.6 further stated that he learnt from his mother that on the date of occurrence i.e. 31.1.2003 at about 5 P.M., the new tenant Rajiv had taken Babloo from his house on a rickshaw to Bhagwanpur in the house of his relative for the purpose of depositing 25-30 thousand in Sahara India, but neither Babloo nor the tenant returned back. P.W.6 further stated that efforts were made to trace Babloo but Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 41 after about 24 days in the cattle shed of the parental house situate in village Gorigama Dih, a polythene packet containing leather jacket and threatening letter was found which was brought by his cousin, Sonu to the Brahmpura house of the witness between 8 - 8.30 A.M. Having seen the jacket, P.W.6, his mother and wife of Babloo began to weep. The witness asserted that the jacket, which was brought by Sonu belonged to Babloo. (Trial court while recording the aforesaid evidence, has noted the fact that the witness while deposing was weeping). P.W.6 further stated that wife of Babloo having seen the leather jacket informed the witness that her husband always used to wear a particular silver chain with locket, watch and kept a pen. She also informed P.W.6 that at the time of departure on 31.01.2003, he was wearing full T-shirt, full pant, leather jacket, sports shoe and muffler but never returned. P.W.6 further claimed that having seen the jacket, he and other family members became confirmed that Babloo has been abducted. P.W.6 further stated that after abduction, Vishwaranjan was regular visitor of his Brahmpura house and used to suggest that after payment of the ransom amount, release of Babloo should be secured, but his father was insisting that unless proof of the fact that Babloo is alive is given to him, he shall not make any payment. P.W.6 further stated that after about two months of the occurrence, Vishwaranjan came to the Brahmpura house of the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 42 victim between 9 - 10 A.M. and informed that in the evening yesterday while he was returning from his (P.W. 6) house, he (Vishwaranjan) was kidnapped near Bibiganj railway crossing and the abductors made him see Babloo and then dropped him at Chapra railway station. P.W.6 further stated that in the light of the aforesaid statement of Vishwaranjan that he had seen Babloo in the company of the abductors, P.W. 6 and his other family members accepted the fact that Babloo has been abducted and is alive. P.W.6 further stated that after 3-4 days of the information received from Vishwaranjan, P.W.6 and his family members became ready to make payment of ransom amount of Rs. 14 lacs. After 4-5 days of getting the aforesaid information from Vishwaranjan, ransom amount of Rs. 14 lacs was kept in a bag and handed over to Satish Kumar Shahi @ Sonu by his father in presence of Vishwaranjan asking them to hand over the amount to the abductors. P.W.6 further stated that P.W.4 Satish Kumar Shahi @ Sonu, Vishwaranjan kept the bag containing the ransom amount in the dikky of the motorcycle. Vishwaranjan, however, stated that Satish Kumar Shahi @ Sonu will not accompany him and requested Mukeshji (P.W.6) to come along with him otherwise the purpose itself may be defeated. P.W.6 then stated that he went along with Vishwaranjan on the motorcycle as a pillion rider. At Fakuli chowk, Vishwaranjan stopped the motorcycle near a Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 43 tea shop and asked the witness that they shall proceed further after taking tea. At the tea shop, 7-8 persons were standing from before with 2-3 motorcycles. P.W.6 further stated that he and Vishwaranjan took tea and betel at the tea shop and then proceeded back on the motorcycle. After covering some distance, Vishwaranjan turned the motorcycle on the canal road and covered a distance of about half- kilometer and then asked P.W.6 that it seems that some other motorcycle is following them from behind. P.W.6 thereafter turned back and saw one motorcycle following his motorcycle and the said motorcycle after sometime overtook his motorcycle, proceeded ahead to some distance and thereafter stopped. The motorcycle which overtook was a Yamaha motorcycle and had two riders. P.W.6 further stated in his evidence that the two riders of the motorcycle overtaking his motorcycle were seen by him at the Fakuli chowk tea shop. Vishwaranjan also stopped his motorcycle near the motorcycle which overtook his motorcycle and then informed P.W.6 that the two riders of the motorcycle which overtook his motorcycle were the person who abducted him. Meanwhile, one another Rajdoot motorcycle came from behind and stopped diagonally 8-10 ft. behind the motorcycle of P.W.6 on which three persons came riding and those three were also seen by P.W.6 at Fakuli chowk tea shop. Driver of Yamaha motorcycle asked P.W.6 and Vishwaranjan whether they Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 44 have brought the ransom amount. Vishwaranjan replied that ransom money has been brought and asked P.W.6 to hand over the bag to him. As per the instruction of Vishwaranjan, P.W.6 handed over the bag containing ransom amount to the driver of Yamaha motorcycle who handed over the bag to his pillion rider and further asked P.W.6 and Vishwaranjan to return back and stated that Babloo shall be released at 8 P.M. P.W.6 thereafter stated that he along with Vishwaranjan came back to his house and waited for the whole night for the arrival of his brother, who did not return. P.W.6 further stated that he could identify those who were sitting on Yamaha and Rajdoot motorcycle. He further stated that on the date of his evidence he is also aware of their name. Having seen the accused persons, P.W.6 identified Amod Singh as the one who was driving Yamaha motorcycle to whom he handed over the bag containing the ransom amount. P.W.6 identified Bhola as the one who was sitting as pillion rider on the Yamaha motorcycle. P.W.6 further stated that Rajdoot motorcycle was driven by Ajit Kumar Mishra, Dr. Thakur and Nandlal were sitting on the Rajdoot motorcycle as pillion rider. P.W.6 further stated that his deceased brother had one engrafting machine by which he used to engraft his name over his belongings. P.W.6 further stated that after payment of the ransom amount, Vishwaranjan stopped coming to his house. P.W.6 also stated that Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 45 after about eight months of the occurrence, police went to mango orchard in village Bahilwara along with Vishwaranjan and Ajit, the ancestral village of Vishwaranjan to search the dead body of the victim. After some time, P.W.6 also went there. On the basis of the disclosure made by Vishwaranjan and Ajit, the land situate by the side of the mango, ridge of banana orchard, was dug wherefrom a three fold purse of Babloo containing his Photo Identity Card with signature and other paper etc., socks smeared with soil was found, his dead body was, however, not found there. Aforesaid articles which were recovered were also identified by P.W.6, Ravindra Shahi and Satish Kumar Shahi @ Sonu in presence of C.O. at Kanti. T.I. chart of the articles was prepared through carbon process over which the witness put his signature, which he identified, which has been marked as Ext. 3/1. Material exhibit purse and socks were identified by P.W.6 in court also and he stated that it is the same purse and socks which were recovered in his presence from beneath the ground and belonged to Babloo. Purse is marked as material Ext.-I, Photo Identify Card is marked as material Ext.-II and socks is marked as material Ext.-III. Having seen the leather jacket, P.W.6 identified the jacket as the one which belonged to his deceased brother, which was brought by Satish Kumar Shahi @ Sonu and was marked as material Ext.-IV. (The court has recorded the demeanour of the witness that Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 46 while deposing he was weeping). After one month of the recovery of the purse, Photo Identity Card and socks at the instance of Vishwaranjan and Ajit, police again came to the same orchard in village Bahilwara along with Nandlal Sah and from a place at a distance of 4-5 ft. from where purse etc. was recovered exhumed the dead body of the victim together with one shoe, one pant and one socks. ( again the court has recorded that while deposing the witness was weeping). The witness also clarified that the shoe recovered was a sports shoe. The witness also identified all the accused persons by name and face both. He also stated that his statement was recorded by the police. P.W. 6 in his cross-examination has stated that he left Calcutta on 3rd February reaching Muzaffarpur on 4.2.2003 in the morning along with his father but before his arrival at Muzaffarpur he was aware about the occurrence as his mother telephonically informed him about the occurrence. He also stated that after coming to Muzaffarpur his father went to the police station along with 2-4 persons but he does not remember their name. P.W. 6 further stated that having arrived at Muzaffarpur he also went to search his brother, as such, he is not aware when his father came back from police station but met him at his residence between 7-8 P.M. and advised him to rest as he was unwell from before while in Calcutta. P.W. 6 also stated that his father again went to police station on 5.2.2003 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 47 between 9-10 A.M. and returned to the residence after 1-1½ hours when Vishwaranjan was sitting in his house from before. P.W. 6 clarified in the same paragraph that on 5.2.2003 also he did not accompany his father to police station. P.W. 6 also stated that alias name of Sonu is Satish Shahi and his father is Sri Raghunath Shahi. P.W. 6 also stated that his father has three other brothers, his father is joint with father of Satish but is not aware whether they are joint in business. Raghunath Shahi is looking after agriculture of not only his own but also of his father who is in business. Sandeep Shahi (P.W. 8) is elder brother of Satish Shahi (P.W. 4), Vishwaranjan is co-brother (Sarhu) of Sandeep Shahi (P.W. 8) and acted as mediator in the settlement of marriage of Babloo and thereby became trustworthy. P.W. 6 further stated that Babloo was not deaf but was little hard of hearing and was using hearing aid for listening clearly. Babloo was elder to Sandeep. P.W. 6 also stated that wife of Sandeep and Vishwaranjan are sisters. He further stated that Sandeep is not only his cousin but also son of his mother‟s sister (Mausera Bhai) as his mother‟s sister (Mausi) is married to his uncle. He further clarified that Sandeep was married earlier in the year 1996-97 but Babloo was married later. P.W. 6 has also refuted the suggestion that his first statement before the police was not recorded on 5th or 6th February, 2003. He also denied the suggestion that his first, last statement Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 48 before the police was recorded on 3.4.2004 and further stated that police officer recorded his statement on 5-6 occasions and also took notes. P.W. 6 admitted in his cross-examination that Rama Shankar Shahi is his uncle and is residing separately. He has three sons, namely, Arvind Shahi, Ravindra Shahi and Navin Shahi. Navin Shahi is married in village Bahilwara which is also the village of accused Vishwaranjan. Father in law of Navin is Vishwanath Shukla but P.W. 6 is not aware whether Vishwanath Shukla is a witness on the seizure list. He also admitted in his cross-examination that for identifying the dead body he has come to village Bahilwara on two occasions but he does not remember that on both the occasions he met Vishwanath Shukla. P.W. 6 also stated in his cross-examination that after the occurrence Vishwaranjan was regularly coming to his house. At times there was interval of a day or two. P.W. 6 also stated that Vishwaranjan was always asking that release of Babloo be secured after paying the ransom amount. P.W. 6 denied the suggestion that on 4.5.2003 Vishwarajan was falsely implicated in the case after his refusal to implicate others. P.W. 6 also admitted in his cross-examination that Vishwaranjan had filed an application before S.D.O. implicating him and his father but then volunteered that such application was filed after ransom amount was paid. P.W. 6 also admitted that he is not aware about filing of any protest petition, Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 49 Complaint Case No. C/1028-2003 by his father, as he had been visiting Calcutta from time to time. He also admitted that he is unaware about the fact that the case filed by Hari Shahi and his father have been amalgamated. P.W. 6 also admitted that his father recorded his statement in Court but he is not aware about the contents of the statement as also the date on which the same was recorded and denied the suggestion that his father recorded his statement on 24.06.2003. He also stated that he is aware of the case filed by Vishwaranjan against him and his father alleging assault on himself (Vishwaranjan) by his father. P.W. 6 also stated that he is unaware about the applications dated 18.07.2003, 19.07.2003 filed by the wife of Vishwaranjan against him (witness) and his family members before the Collector and D.I.G. P.W. 6 has also stated that he is unaware that father of Vishwaranjan filed applications dated 28.08.2003, 18.09.2003 before the Superintendent of Police and S.D.J.M. P.W. 6 has further stated that he does not remember whether he has stated in his police statement that he learnt from his mother that few days prior to the occurrence, on the recommendation of Vishwaranjan, a tenant was inducted in the portion of the house which has tiled roof and that the tenant disclosed his name as Rajeev Kumar Singh, son of Shailendra, resident of Sitamarhi. P.W. 6 also confirmed in the cross-examination that after his arrival a call was Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 50 received from unknown person on 5.2.2003. He also stated that police was informed that the caller claimed that Babloo was in his custody and heavy amount should be arranged. P.W. 6 also stated that he does not remember whether in police statement he has stated that he learnt from his mother that on 31.01.2003 at about 5 P.M. the tenant whose name is Rajeev came on a rickshaw and went along with Babloo to Bhagwanpur to deposit Rs. 25-30,000/- of his relatives with Sahara India. P.W. 6 also stated that he does not remember whether he had stated in his police statement that his cousin Sonu came to his Brahmpura house along with jacket and the threatening letter which was seized by Brahmpura police. P.W. 6 also stated that he has stated before the police that he learnt from the wife of Babloo that in the evening of occurrence Babloo went wearing silver chain with locket, wrist watch, full T-shirt, full-pant, leather jacket, sports shoe, muffler and also carried a pen. P.W. 6 also stated that he did state before the police that after the occurrence Vishwaranjan was regularly coming to his Brahmpura house and asking him and his father to secure release of Babloo after making payment but his father insisted for proof of Babloo being alive, otherwise he was not ready to pay the ransom amount. He also stated that he did state in his police statement that his father asked both Vishwaranjan and his cousin Sonu who was residing at his Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 51 Brahmpura house to take the ransom amount of Rs. 14 lakhs, which was handed over in a bag to Sonu in presence of Vishwaranjan. The bag was kept in the dikky of motorcycle. Vishwaranjan, however, asked Sonu not to come along with him and further said that Mukeshji should come along with him, failing which the purpose will be defeated. He also stated in his police statement that motorcycle was being driven by Vishwaranjan and P.W. 6 was sitting as pillion rider. Vishwaranjan stopped the motorcycle on a tea shop near Fakuli chowk and stated that after taking tea they will proceed. P.W. 6 also stated in his police statement that he saw 7-8 persons standing near the tea shop from before with two motorcycles. Having taken tea Vishwaranjan and the witness took betel and returned on the motorcycle, after covering some distance Vishwaranjan turned the motorcycle on canal road. P.W. 6 also stated in his police statement that he did state that after covering distance of half kilometer Vishwaranjan asked P.W. 6 that some other motorcycle is following them on the canal road from behind, whereafter he turned back and saw one motorcycle coming. P.W. 6 also stated that he informed the police that the motorcycle coming from behind overtook his motorcycle and stopped after going little ahead. Two persons were sitting over the said Yamaha motorcycle. He also asserted that he did inform the police that after reaching near Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 52 Yamaha motorcycle Vishwaranjan also stopped the motorcycle and informed P.W. 6 that these persons riding the said motorcycle earlier abducted him. P.W. 6 further stated that he did inform the police that another Rajdoot motorcycle also came from behind in the meanwhile and stopped 8-10 ft. behind his motorcycle. On the Rajdoot motorcycle three persons had come. P.W. 6 further stated that he did state before the police that driver of Yamaha motorcycle asked him and Vishwaranjan as to whether they have come with cash. Vishwaranjan then asked P.W. 6 to hand over the ransom amount, whereafter the bag containing money was handed over to the driver of Yamaha motorcycle who gave the bag to the other person sitting on the Yamaha motorcycle. P.W. 6 declined the suggestion that he gave statement before the police that the persons sitting on the Yamaha and Rajdoot motorcycle were known to him but clarified that he can identify them if they are shown to him. He also denied the suggestion that Vishwaranjan has been implicated in this case as he refused to implicate Deepak Shahi in the case. He also denied the suggestion that Vishwaranjan has been implicated in the case as he refused to put signature over his confessional statement whereafter he was subjected to assault and then was falsely implicated in the case. He also stated in his cross-examination that he could know the name of accused Amod Singh from Ravindra Shahi after his arrest in Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 53 2004 i.e. after about 5 months of the recovery of the dead body. P.W. 6 further claimed in the cross examination that earlier he had seen Amod Singh near the tea shop just before payment of ransom amount and at the time of payment of ransom amount but at that time he was not aware about his name. He also stated that he went to police station after he learnt that accused person has been apprehended. He also stated in cross examination that he went to the office of the Circle Officer, Kanti to identify the articles of the deceased. He reiterated in cross-examination that for the first time he saw Amod Singh, Bhola at the tea shop, second time while accepting the ransom amount on the canal road and third time in the police station. P.W. 6 again stated in cross-examination that having returned from Fakuli chowk in the canal road payment was made but he never tried to ascertain the name of the place where ransom amount was paid. He also stated in the cross-examination that he recorded his statement before the Sub-Inspector prior to and after the arrest of Amod Singh but he does not remember the date on which the statements were made. He also stated in his cross-examination that prior to the recovery of the dead body he did not show the place where the ransom amount was paid but after recovery of the dead body he did show the place where the ransom amount was paid. He also denied the suggestion that he has falsely stated that he had shown the place Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 54 of payment of ransom amount to the Investigating Officer after dead body was recovered. He further stated that first statement he recorded in February and in the last statement he stated about recovery of the dead body. He also stated that the tea shop where he had seen Bhola and Amod for the first time was also shown by him to the Investigating Officer, whereafter Investigating Officer went to the betel, tea shop owner and put questions to them but did not record their statement. He also stated that at Fakuli Chowk there are 10-15 shops. He also stated in cross-examination that when he and Vishwaranjan were taking tea in the tea shop near Fakuli chowk the only person known to him near the tea shop was Vishwaranjan. P.W. 6 also stated that part of ransom amount was brought from Calcutta and the remaining amount was arranged by his father at Muzaffarpur. He has further given details of the persons from whom he had arranged the ransom amount. P.W. 6 also stated that the ransom amount was counted by him, his father and Vishwaranjan and also gave the description of number of bundles and its denomination as also the description of the bag in which the amount was kept and that his father instructed Sonu to go along with Vishwaranjan for payment of ransom amount but Vishwaranjan did not go with Sonu and asked the witness to accompany him. P.W. 6 also stated that at the tea shop near Fakuli chowk he asked Vishwaranjan whether it is Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 55 proper to stop at the tea shop with so much of cash with them, Vishwaranjan, however, stated that there is nothing to fear, whereafter the two took tea and betel at Fakuli chowk. P.W. 6 admitted in his cross-examination that he did not show the machine to the police by which his brother inscribed his name over locket and the pen. He also declined the suggestion that his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer only on 3.4.2004. He also stated that it is incorrect to suggest that he has falsely stated that from the cattle shed of his parental house in village Gorigama packet containing jacket and threatening letter was recovered. P.W. 6 also stated that he did not stated before the police that Brahmpura police recovered the packet containing jacket and the threatening letter from the cattle shed in his village Gorigama as the jacket and the threatening letter was brought from the village to Brahmpura house by Sonu, whereafter the two was taken to Brahmpura police station by his father, Sonu, Ravindra Shahi and 2-3 other persons. Packet was not heavy as there was only a jacket and the threatening letter kept in the packet. P.W. 6 again reiterated in cross-examination that he went along with Vishwaranjan to make payment of ransom amount to the abductors. He also reiterated that he did state before the police that he can identify those to whom he delivered the ransom amount. He further stated that he has given the description of the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 56 persons to whom he delivered the ransom amount. P.W. 6 also stated that personal belonging of Babloo was recovered earlier in village Bahilwara and one month thereafter his dead body was recovered. He again reiterated in cross-examination that the Rajdoot motorcycle was being driven by Ajit Kumar Mishra and behind him Dr. Awdhesh Thakur and Nandlal were sitting as pillion rider. P.W. 6 also confirmed in the cross-examination that he saw Ajit Kumar Mishra, Awadhesh Thakur and Nandlal for the first time in his life at the tea shop near Fakuli chowk and then at the time of payment of ransom amount on 4.4.2003.
(vii). P.W.7 Dr. Mumtaz Ahmad is Associate Professor, S.K.M.C.H. and conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Raj Kumar Shahi @ Bablu Shahi on 30.10.2003 at 12.45 noon and found all his ribs of right and left side fractured with rupture of right and left lungs, spleen and liver with presence of discoloured fluid blood. In the opinion of the Doctor, deceased died due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of chest injuries caused by hard and blunt impact, which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. According to the Doctor, time elapsed since death is between 8-12 months. P.W.7 stated that the age mentioned in the port-mortem report is on the basis of the age mentioned in the inquest report. He also stated in cross-examination Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 57 that the body was in process of advanced decomposition and was not identifiable. He further stated in the cross-examination that in the report, he has mentioned Hindu male on the basis of entries made in the inquest report and challan which came along with the dead body and is not his opinion.
(viii). P.W. 8 Sandeep Kumar Shahi is the cousin of the deceased. On the date of occurrence on 31.01.2003 he was at Calcutta with his uncle Shiv Shankar Shahi and his son Mukesh Shahi. He has stated that he learnt about the occurrence at Calcutta from Mukesh Shahi, who received telephonic information about the occurrence from his mother on 1st February, 2003. On getting such information, his uncle and Mukesh Shahi came to Muzaffarpur but P.W. 8 did not come along with them. He came to Muzaffarpur later and after he went to the house of Shiv Shankar Shahi at Brahmpura, learnt about the details of the occurrence from his uncle, who while narrating the details of the occurrence was weeping. P.W. 8 has further stated that 2-3 days after his return from Calcutta he met Vishwaranjan at the residence of his uncle Shiv Shankar Shahi. P.W. 8 further stated that Vishwaranjan is his co-brother as his wife and wife of Vishwaranjan are sisters. P.W. 8 also stated that when he met Vishwaranjan he informed him about the abduction of Babloo and thereafter P.W. 8 went back to Calcutta and again came to Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 58 Muzaffarpur in April to attend the marriage of his brother in law. P.W. 8 further stated that in the marriage of his brother in law he met Vishwaranjan at Begusarai in his in-laws house and asked him as to why Babloo did not return even after payment of Rs. 14 lakhs as ransom money. Vishwaranjan, however, evaded the answer. P.W. 8 having attended the marriage in his matrimonial home returned to Calcutta. In the same year P.W. 8 again came to Muzaffarpur at the time of Chhath festival and went to his native village Gorigama and met Mukesh Shahi and Chunna and the two informed him about the surrender, disclosure made by Nandlal in connection with the occurrence that dead body of Babloo is in Bahilwara. Mukesh further informed P.W. 8 that in the light of the disclosure made by Nandlal P.W. 8, his father and 2-4 others went to Bahilwara where police came along with Nandlal driver. On the disclosure made by Nandlal driver dead body of Babloo Shahi was exhumed from banana orchard along with shoe and socks. He further stated that at the time of recovery of the dead body, shoe and socks, police interrogated Nandlal driver, who in presence of the available persons, confessed that he along with Amod Singh, Vishwaranjan Singh, Bhola Singh, Awdhesh Thakur, Ajit Kumar killed Babloo and the aforesaid persons gave him Rs. 50,000/- for executing the murder. P.W. 8 in his cross-examination has stated that his in-laws house is in Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 59 Begusarai district and in the same house Vishwaranjan is also married. Wife of P.W. 8 has three more sisters but she is the youngest amongst the sisters. Name of the wife of Vishwaranjan is Rekha who is elder to the wife of P.W. 8 but just elder to his wife is Putul who is married in Chhajan. Rekha is even elder to Putul who is married to Vishwaranjan. P.W. 8 further stated that Mukesh is the name of his Sarhu (co-brother) who resides in Chhajan. The eldest amongst the co-brothers is Ajay Singh. P.W. 8 also stated that his marriage was mediated by Vishwaranjan. P.W. 8 also stated that he is cousin of Babloo and is younger to him. P.W. 8 further stated that he is not only the cousin of Babloo but his mother and mother of Babloo are own sisters. P.W. 8 denied the suggestion that Babloo was disabled and that is why his marriage was solemnized later. He further denied the suggestion that he did not met Vishwaranjan in the marriage of his brother in law in April and that Vishwaranjan evaded the question about non-return of Babloo even after payment of ransom amount of Rs. 14 lakhs.
(ix). P.W. 9 Smt. Geeta Devi is the mother of the deceased Babloo Shahi. She has stated in her evidence that Babloo Shahi, along with his family, was also residing with her in Brahmpura house. She has further stated that in Brahmpura house there were few tenants also. P.W. 9 also stated that 14-15 days prior Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 60 to the occurrence one person had come to obtain tenancy in the house. He is present in Court today. On being asked by the Court the person, identified by the witness as the one who had come to obtain tenancy 14-15 days prior to the occurrence, disclosed his name as Ajit Kumar. P.W. 9 began weeping, refuted such claim and asserted that when he had come to obtain tenancy he disclosed his name as Rajeev. P.W. 9 further stated that the date on which Rajeev had come to obtain tenancy about half an our earlier Vishwaranjan had also come to her house. P.W. 9 also stated that after his arrival Rajeev had knocked the grill, whereupon Vishwaranjan asked Babloo to see as to who is the visitor. Babloo opened the grill and asked the visitor, the visitor (Rajeev) replied that he requires accommodation on rent. P.W. 9 further stated that her son Babloo had asked Rajeev whether he has a family then Rajeev replied that besides his wife he has a son, daughter and the 3 shall live with him in the rented accommodation. Babloo further asked Rajeev as to who shall be his guarantor for obtaining the accommodation on rent. Vishwaranjan thereafter intervened and stated that he (Rajeev) is resident of Bhagwanpur, all his relatives are also residing there and all are known to him (Vishwaranjan) and nothing further is to be enquired about him (Rajeev). P.W. 9 further stated that in the light of the assertions made by Vishwaranjan she and her son became satisfied and allowed Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 61 tenancy to Rajeev on a monthly rental of Rs. 250/-. In the rental accommodation Rajeev was living all alone, he did not bring his family to stay with him in spite of her request to bring his family. P.W. 9 also stated that Rajeev, during his stay as tenant in her house, became familiar as he was not only frequently visiting her residential portion but was also regularly talking to Babloo. He also at times distributed sweets amongst other tenants and played with her grand- son, grand-daughter. P.W. 9 also stated that her son Babloo was not employed any where. He was looking after the household affairs as also building activity in his Muzaffarpur house. P.W. 9 further stated that at times her son also used to sit in few of the shops. P.W. 9 further stated that Rajeev lived in her house as a tenant for 14-15 days until 31.01.2003, on that day, at about 5 P.M., he came to her house on a rickshaw, which remained parked on the entrance, Rajeev came upstairs asking Babloo to come along with him to Bhagwanpur as his relative had to deposit Rs. 25-30,000/- with Sahara India. He also asked Babloo to enable him to acquire Agency of Sahara India as he was already serving as Agent in Sahara India. Initially Babloo declined to come along with Rajeev as he was suffering from cold but Rajeev persuaded him on the ground that today being Friday, tomorrow there will be Saturday and rickshaw is already waiting for the two to come to Bhagwanpur and after much insistence by Rajeev, Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 62 Babloo agreed to go along with him. P.W. 9 further stated that while going with Rajeev, Babloo was wearing a black leather jacket, muffler, full T-shirt, shoes, socks as it was winter. P.W. 9 further claimed that she can identify the apparels of Babloo which he had put on while going along with Rajeev. P.W. 9 further stated that Babloo went on the same rickshaw along with Rajeev and thereafter neither Babloo nor Rajeev returned. In the same evening until 9 P.M. Babloo did not return and then P.W. 9 and others became worried and made telephone calls to the relatives as also searched for him but he could not be traced. P.W. 9 also stated that her elder son Mukesh and her husband reside in Calcutta in connection with their business concerning electrical items. In the following morning information about the occurrence was given to her husband and cousin brother in law Hari Shahi who came to her house and assured her that there is nothing to worry as he is there. Hari Shahi lodged the case and also called the police in the evening and she recorded her statement. P.W. 9 also stated that after receiving information her husband and her elder son came from Calcutta on 4th. After their arrival P.W. 9 informed them about the occurrence. P.W. 9 further stated that after arrival of her husband ransom call from the abductors began to come. After arrival of her husband and elder son Vishwaranjan began to accompany the two regularly, wherever her husband was visiting he Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 63 also used to accompany him. P.W. 9 further stated that at times Vishwaranjan used to ask her to ensure payment to the abductors. At times Vishwaranjan himself used to receive the ransom call and speak to the ransom caller and then was handing over the receiver to her. P.W. 9 further stated that at times ransom caller was also extending threats. P.W. 9 further stated that 24-25 days after the occurrence P.W. 4 Sonu, his father and Rama Shankar Shahi had come from her village home Gorigama with a jacket which she identified as that of her son which he was wearing at the time of his departure and threatening letter. (The court below has noted in the evidence that while deposing her evidence witness was weeping and her evidence was adjourned as she was not in a position to depose further). P.W. 9 further stated that after the jacket was found Vishwaranjan continued to regularly visit her house and persuade her husband to pay ransom amount to the abductors. He also used to ask P.W. 9 to make payment to the abductors at the earliest as the abductors may be harassing her son by wrapping his mouth, tying his hand and inflicting burn injuries on his person with a lighted cigarette. She also stated that abductors were always asking for payment of Rs. 14 lakhs as ransom money. P.W. 9 also stated that her husband used to tell Vishwaranjan that he shall make payment of ransom money only after he is assured that his son is alive, without Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 64 such assurance how could he make payment of ransom amount. P.W. 9 further stated that one day Vishwaranjan made a telephone call from Chapra and informed her husband that he was abducted from Bibiganj-Muzaffarpur. P.W. 9 further stated that the aforesaid call was received by her and as Vishwaranjan asked her to hand over the receiver to her husband, she handed over the receiver to him. P.W. 9 also stated that the aforesaid call was made around 5 A.M. but on the same day, around 11 A.M., Vishwaranjan came to her house and informed them that abductors made him meet, see Bablu but did not allow him to speak to him. P.W. 9 further stated that in spite of the aforesaid statement of Vishwaranjan her husband was not ready to believe and asked Vishwaranjan whether the person whom he had met, seen was really Babloo or some other person. Vishwaranjan thereafter turned southwards and stated that he identified Babloo and why should he speak a lie. Vishwaranjan also stated that he wanted to speak to Babloo but abductors did not allow him to do so. Vishwaranjan further stated that abductors were saying that Shahiji wanted proof which has been provided, now he should make payment. P.W. 9 also stated that Vishwaranjan also informed her that abductors have given time of 4-5 days for making payment. P.W. 9 then stated that her husband arranged Rs. 14 lakhs and asked Vishwaranjan, Sonu to deliver the ransom money to the abductors Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 65 but Vishwaranjan stated that if Sonu will accompany him for payment of ransom amount the purpose will be defeated and asked Mukesh to accompany him for payment of ransom amount to the abductors on motorcycle. Mukesh and Vishwaranjan went on a motorcycle to make payment of the ransom amount and having made payment of Rs. 14 lakhs returned around 3 P.M. Vishwaranjan informed P.W. 9 and others that he made payment of ransom amount of Rs. 14 lakhs to those who had abducted him and Babloo shall return by 8 P.M. P.W. 6 Mukesh also informed P.W. 9 and others that Vishwaranjan made payment of the ransom amount to the abductors. P.W. 9 further stated that even after payment of ransom amount her son did not return. P.W. 9 also stated that after payment of ransom amount to the abductors Vishwaranjan also stopped coming to her house. P.W. 9 also stated that after about 9 months of the occurrence dead body of her son was exhumed from village Bahilwara and that she also saw the dead body, which was of her son. P.W. 9 also stated that along with Vishwaranjan one another person had also come to her house twice whom she can identify by face as she is not aware of his name. In the dock P.W. 9 identified the aforesaid person, who on being asked by the Court, disclosed his name as Amod Singh. P.W. 9 also stated that she was examined by the police. P.W. 9 in her cross-examination has stated that her son Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 66 Babloo was neither deaf nor foolish but was little hard of hearing and was using hearing aid, he was also not lame. She also denied the suggestion that marriage of Babloo was delayed because he was deaf and disabled. She also stated that Vishwaranjan acted as mediator in the marriage of her son Babloo by arranging his marriage with his own relative. She also admitted in her cross-examination that Sonu (P.W. 4) is the son of her elder brother in law who is married to her younger sister and both of them were married on the same day and at the same Marwa. P.W. 9 also stated that elder brother of Sonu is Sandeep (P.W. 8). She further stated that wife of Sandeep and Vishwaranjan are sisters. P.W. 9 further stated that Vishwaranjan began to visit her house after marriage of Sandeep. She further refuted the suggestion that she has falsely stated in her examination in chief that after payment of ransom amount of Rs. 14 lakhs Vishwaranjan stopped coming to her house. She also refuted the suggestion that her husband, son Mukesh have falsely implicated Vishwaranjan as they wanted him to implicate Deepak Shahi but Vishwaranjan was not agreeable to implicate Deepak Shahi, thereafter Vishwaranjan was assaulted and stopped coming to her house. She also refuted the suggestion that her husband, son assaulted Vishwaranjan on 24.06.2003. She further stated that she has no knowledge about any complaint having been filed by Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 67 Vishwaranjan for the assault on him by her husband, son. P.W. 9 also stated that immediately after the occurrence she and other family members of the family did not suspect the involvement of Vishwaranjan in the occurrence. After payment of ransom amount Vishwaranjan began to escape then suspicion was raised against him. P.W. 9 also stated that she has no knowledge about the date of arrest of the different accused in the present case. She further stated that she is not in a position to confirm whether Deepak Shahi was arrested prior to 24.06.2003. She further claimed that the jacket, threatening letter, which has been identified by her, was found 24-25 days after the occurrence. P.W. 9 also confirmed in her cross- examination that the jacket was brought from Gorigama to Muzaffarpur by Sonu (P.W. 4), his father and Rama Shankar Shahi who is also her elder brother in law at about 8.30 A.M. P.W. 9 further confirmed that jacket was shown to her and she identified the jacket which her son had put on. Having seen the jacket witness began weeping. Sonu and his father informed P.W. 9 that the jacket and letter was found wrapped in a polythene packet kept on the dry foliage of gourd spread over the roof of the cattle shed, those who brought the jacket did not disclose the name of the persons who kept the same over the roof of the cattle shed. She also confirmed that no name was written on the jacket. P.W. 9 further stated that she did Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 68 inform the police that on the date of occurrence while leaving Bablu had put on the same jacket. During her cross-examination also P.W. 9 began weeping and claimed that the jacket was also recognized by the wife of the victim. P.W. 9 further refuted the suggestion that she did not disclose the factum of having identified the jacket to the police and her statement to that effect in court is false. P.W. 9 also claimed that she had stated before the police that Vishwaranjan had come half an hour before Rajeev came to her house seeking tenancy. She further clarified that Vishwaranjan was present in her house at the time when Rajeev had come asking for tenancy. P.W. 9 further stated that she did state before the police that after arrival of Rajeev he knocked the grill, whereafter Vishwaranjan asked Babloo to see who is the visitor. P.W. 9 also confirmed in her cross-examination that Rajeev was given tenancy in the house on the recommendation of Vishwaranjan who stated that Rajeev is resident of Bhagwanpur but P.W. 9 and others were not surprised as to why a person resident of Bhagwanpur seeking tenancy in Brahmpura. P.W. 9 refuted the suggestion that her house was not taken on rent by Rajeev on the recommendation of Vishwaranjan. P.W. 9 further stated that she did state before the police that Vishwaranjan stated that Rajeev is resident of Bhagwanpur where his other relatives are also residing and there is nothing to enquire about him as he knows all his Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 69 relatives. She further stated that she did state before the police that being satisfied about the recommendation of Vishwaranjan house was let out to Rajeev. P.W. 9 further stated that she did state before the police that her son while going along with Rajeev in the evening had put on black leather jacket, muffler, full T-shirt, shoes and socks as it was winter. P.W. 9 also declined the suggestion that she has wrongly identified the jacket in the court. She also stated in her cross-examination that after Babloo did not return in the evening telephone calls were made to the house of the relatives of his wife (Fufa Munindra Dubey) who resides in Bhagwanpur mohalla. P.W. 9 also stated that she did state before the police that even after recovery of the jacket Vishwaranjan kept coming to her house and always asked her husband that ransom money be paid to the abductors. She also informed the police that Vishwaranjan was also asking her to make payment of ransom amount to the abductors at the earliest as the abductors must be harassing her son by overturning, tying his hand and putting tape on his mouth and by causing burn injury by lighted cigarette. P.W. 9 further claimed that she did inform the police that on telephone abductors were always asking for payment of ransom amount of Rs. 14 lakhs. She also claimed that she did inform the police after 10-15 days of Holi that Vishwaranjan was asking her husband to make payment of the ransom amount and to Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 70 secure release of his son. She further stated that she did state before the police that her husband was always asking Vishwaranjan that he shall make payment of ransom amount to the abductors after he is shown evidence of the fact that his son is alive. P.W. 9 also stated that she did inform the police that one day a telephone call was received at 5 A.M. by her in which Vishwaranjan claimed that he was speaking from Chapra, whereafter she handed over the receiver to her husband as per instruction of Vishwaranjan who informed her husband that abductors apprehended him from Bibiganj-Muzaffarpur and brought him to Chapra. She further claimed that she did inform the police that on the same day Vishwaranjan came to her house at about 11 A.M. and informed her husband that the abductors made him meet and see Babloo but did not allow him to speak to him. P.W. 9 also stated that she did inform the police that in the light of the aforesaid assertion of Vishwaranjan, her husband asked Vishwaranjan about the person whom he met/saw at Chapra was really Babloo or some one else, Vishwaranjan thereafter turned towards south and asserted that he recognizes Babloo and why should he speak lie. P.W. 9 further claimed that she did inform the police that Vishwaranjan also stated that he wanted to speak to Babloo but the abductors did not allow him to talk to Babloo. P.W. 9 also claimed that she also inform the police that Vishwaranjan also Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 71 stated before her husband that abductors told him that Shahiji wanted proof, which has now been given and he should pay the ransom amount within 4-5 days. P.W. 9 also stated that she did inform the police that her husband arranged Rs. 14 lakhs for payment to the abductors but she is not aware about the source from whom the said amount was arranged but claimed to have seen the amount. P.W. 9 also claimed that she stated before the police that initially Sonu and Vishwaranjan were asked to carry the ransom amount for payment to the abductors but Vishwaranjan asked Sonu not to come as if he comes, the purpose will be defeated and took Mukesh along with him. P.W. 9 also claimed that she did inform the Sub-Inspector that Mukesh and Vishwaranjan had gone on motorcycle for payment to the abductors. She also claimed that she did inform the police that having made payment both Vishwaranjan and Mukesh came around 3 P.M. and Vishwaranjan informed her that ransom amount has been paid to the same person who earlier apprehended him and Babloo shall return by 8 P.M. She further claimed that she did inform the Sub-Inspector that after payment of the ransom amount to the abductors Vishwaranjan never came to her house. P.W. 9 also claimed that after about 9 months of the occurrence dead body of her son was exhumed which she identified at the entrance of her house, there was flesh in some portions of the dead body, the bones were of Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 72 male. P.W. 9 refuted the suggestion that the dead body was not that of her son. P.W. 9 also stated that she is not aware about the litigation with Vishwaranjan. She also denied the suggestion that Vishwaranjan was being pressurized to implicate Deepak Shahi who was arrested earlier than Vishwaranjan and that Vishwaranjan was assaulted for failure to produce evidence against Deepak Shahi, whereafter he filed a case against her husband and son with medical certificate. P.W. 9 also refuted the suggestion that Vishwaranjan has been implicated in the present case after he filed case against her husband, son. P.W. 9 also asserted that she did state before the Sub- Inspector afterwards that along with Vishwaranjan, others were also coming but such fact was not stated before anyone other than the Sub-Inspector. P.W. 9 also refuted the suggestion that she has given false evidence. She also asserted that Vishwaranjan was on visiting terms from before the occurrence. She also stated that 5 days before the occurrence Vishwaranjan had come to her house along with Amod but at that time she was not aware about his name and she could know his name in Court. After the occurrence Amod Singh never came to her house. P.W. 9 further stated that when Amod had come to her house 5 days prior to the occurrence along with Vishwaranjan she had asked Vishwaranjan about him and Vishwaranjan replied that Amod is his neighbour and the two are Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 73 going to Moti Jhil for purchasing clothes for their children. P.W. 9 further stated that she did not have any interaction with Amod and the two also did not speak to each other in her presence. She also claimed that Vishwaranjan and Amod had stayed in her house for about half an hour, took tea and then went away. P.W. 9 also stated that one day prior to the occurrence on 30th January Vishwaranjan had come to her house along with Amod and stayed at her house for about 5 minutes. She also stated that after arrival of her husband from Calcutta Vishwaranjan again came to her house. P.W. 9 clarified that she had seen Amod at her house on two occasions and thereafter in Court. P.W. 9 also claimed that after arrest of Vishwaranjan he made disclosure statement to the police. She also stated that she visits the Court premises along with her son Mukesh. P.W. 9 also claimed that she identified Amod on the first day of her evidence and on that day her son Mukesh was at Calcutta. P.W. 9 again reiterated that prior to the occurrence she has not heard the name of Amod but had seen him in her house on two occasions and then saw him in Court at the time of her evidence. P.W. 9 also stated that she is not aware about the date on which Ajit Kumar was inducted as tenant in her house and then volunteered that he had come two days after Tila Sankranti. P.W. 9 also stated that on the date of occurrence there were 3-4 tenants in her house, namely, Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 74 Munna, Mohan, Pankaj, Hari Shankar together with Raman. P.W. 9 also stated in her cross-examination that her son had asked the name and address of Ajit and noted down the same in his diary, after occurrence she has seen Ajit in Court at the time of her deposition. She refuted the suggestion that Ajit was not a tenant in her house.
(x). P.W. 10 Shiv Shankar Shahi is the father of the deceased. He has stated in his evidence that on 31.01.2003 he was in Calcutta and was telephonically informed about the occurrence by his wife. 3-4 days thereafter he along with his elder son Mukesh Kumar Shahi came to Muzaffarpur residence and learnt about the details of the occurrence. His wife informed him that 2, 3 days after his departure on 17.01.2003 one person came looking for rental accommodation, interacted with Babloo, disclosed his name as Rajeev Kumar Singh, son of Kaushlendra Prasad Singh, resident of village Dumra, Sitamarhi. Babloo, however, asked the visitor that he shall not be given rental accommodation until he has a guarantor, meanwhile, Vishwaranjan, who had come half an hour earlier, intervened and on his assurance Rajeev was inducted as tenant. After taking the accommodation on rent Rajeev Kumar began to reside in the rental accommodation and became friendly with Babloo. On 31.01.2003 around 5 P.M. Rajeev Kumar informed Babloo that one of his relative is in Bhagwanpur who has to deposit Rs. 20-25,000/- Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 75 with Sahara India and he is to go outside in the morning, as such, he (Babloo) should presently come along with him, collect the money and complete the necessary documentation, which will be beneficial for both of us. P.W. 10 further stated that his son having been duped, agreed to come along with Rajeev. He also stated that Rajeev had brought a rickshaw on which the two went to Bhagwanpur stating that they shall come back within half an our but the two did not return till late night and there was sorrow and gloom prevailing in the family. Family members, neighbours, tenants proceeded to search. Telephone calls were also made on the numbers written in a diary as also to the relatives but nothing could be ascertained. In the morning, other residents of the locality also made enquiry. After receipt of the information cousin of P.W. 10 Hari Shahi, who resides in the adjoining mohalla Rahul Nagar, came, spoke to his wife and informed the police, on the basis of which case was registered. P.W. 10 further stated that he also learnt from his wife that 5 days prior to the occurrence Vishwaranjan had come to his house along with another person and after having taken tea, the two went away saying that they are going to purchase some clothes. P.W. 10 thereafter stated that 1 day prior to the occurrence also Vishwaranjan had come to his house and asked his wife as to when Shahiji is likely to come, then his wife informed Vishwaranjan that he is unwell at Calcutta Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 76 and she and other family members are to leave for Calcutta within 4- 5 days. Having learnt about the programme Vishwaranjan came down and went along with the same person who, on the motorcycle, came to their house 5 days earlier. In paragraph 2, P.W. 10 has stated that after his return from Calcutta he had gone to police station and recorded his statement. In paragraph 3, P.W. 10 stated that 2-3 ransom calls were received in the morning one day after his arrival. The ransom caller claimed that Babloo was in his custody, for ensuring his safe return heavy amount should be arranged, the matter should not be pursued much and further instruction shall be given later. In paragraph 4, P.W. 10 stated that, meanwhile, Vishwaranjan was regularly coming to him and asking the witness, his wife and son to arrange money for payment to the abductors as ransom call is coming, failing which the work may be spoiled. P.W. 10, however, asked Vishwaranjan that he shall not make payment until he is shown definite evidence about the existence of Babloo. P.W. 10 further stated that after 24 days of the occurrence on 24.02.2003 his brother Raghunath Shahi, nephew Satish Shahi @ Sonu came to him from his paternal village Gorigama Dih with a polythene bag containing jacket of his son and a threatening letter. P.W. 10 also stated that he saw the jacket and read the contents of the threatening letter and then took the jacket and the threatening letter to the police along with his Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 77 brother and nephew as also residents of the locality. The jacket and the letter was seized vide production cum seizure list, which was perused by him and he also put his signature over the same and identified his signature, which was marked as Ext. 3/2. He further stated that Ramakant Shukla and Randhir Verma also put their signature over production cum seizure list in his presence, which was marked as Exts. 3/3, 3/4 respectively. P.W. 10 having perused the threatening letter stated that it is the same threatening letter which he has handed over to the Sub-Inspector, which was marked as Ext. X for identification. Having seen the jacket P.W. 10 stated that it is the same jacket which was brought to him in polythene packet which has already been marked as material Ext. IV. In paragraph 5, P.W. 10 stated that having seen the jacket he came to realize that his son has been abducted. In paragraph 6, P.W. 10 further stated that after the jacket was brought to him Vishwaranjan continue coming to his house and stated that, as evidence has been produced, he (P.W. 10) should make payment of ransom amount, failing which his son shall be killed. In paragraph 7, P.W. 10 stated that after about 2 months a telephone call was received in his house at 5 O‟ clock in the morning. From the voice of the caller, it appeared that caller was Vishwaranjan. The caller also identified himself as Vishwaranjan speaking from Chapra and stated that yesterday in the evening at Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 78 about 7 while caller was returning from the house of P.W. 10 the caller was abducted in a vehicle near Bibiganj railway crossing and his eyes were wrapped. The vehicle moved for 2-3 hours, he (caller) was taken to a house, his eyes were unfolded to meet Bablu and then the caller was dropped at Chapra. P.W. 10 further stated in paragraph 8 that after 4-5 hours Vishwaranjan came to his house and informed him in presence of his wife, son and others that he has met Babloo at the instance of the abductors and further stated that now it is concluded that Babloo is alive and Rs. 14 lakhs should be paid to the abductors after arranging the same at the earliest. P.W. 10 further stated that as directed by Vishwaranjan he arranged Rs. 14 lakhs and kept the same in a cotton bag, handed over to Vishwaranjan and thereafter the two came down to the ground-floor where his son and nephew were standing and asked his nephew Satish @ Sonu to go along with Vishwaranjan. Vishwaranjan, however, refused to go along with Satish and stated that if he is accompanied by Satish the purpose may be defeated and instead asked P.W. 10 to permit his son Mukesh to accompany him. In paragraph 9, P.W. 10 further stated that Vishwaranjan and his son went on a motorcycle for handing over the ransom money after Vishwaranjan kept the amount in the dikky of Yamaha motorcycle. In paragraph 10, P.W. 10 also stated that both Vishwaranjan and his son returned between 3-4 P.M. after Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 79 payment of ransom amount. Vishwaranjan informed P.W. 10 that Rs. 14 lakhs has been paid to the same person who has shown him Babloo and there is nothing to fear. He further stated that Babloo shall return between 8-8.30 in the night but Babloo did not return. In paragraphs 11, 12, P.W. 10 stated that after payment of ransom amount Vishwaranjan stayed in his house for the night and left in the morning stating that he shall find out as to why Babloo did not return, but Vishwaranjan never returned thereafter, even on being called. In paragraph 13, P.W. 10 stated that after waiting for few days he informed the police. In the same paragraph, P.W. 10 further stated that even after police called Vishwaranjan, he did not come and was arrested and recorded his confessional statement. In paragraph 14, P.W. 10 stated that after being arrested Vishwaranjan disclosed the real name of the tenant as Ajit Kumar Mishra together with his address, on the basis of which tenant was also arrested. In paragraph 15, P.W. 10 further stated that Vishwaranjan and Ajit disclosed the name of their other accomplice to police, namely, Amod Singh, Nandlal driver, Dr. Awdhesh and Bhola Singh. In paragraph 16, P.W. 10 stated that as per disclosure made by Vishwaranjan and Ajit police went to the orchard of Vishwaranjan in village Bahilwara to exhume the dead body. In the light of the disclosure made by the two, the corner of the orchard was dug but Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 80 therefrom dead body of Babloo was not recovered, his purse, socks was, however, recovered, which the witness identified. In paragraph 17, P.W. 10 stated that the vehicle by which his son was abducted was also recovered by the police. In paragraph 18, P.W. 10 stated that Nandlal driver was also arrested by the police and on the basis of his disclosure dead body of Babloo was recovered from the banana orchard together with his one shoe, socks, full pant and the witness identified the full pant, shoe of his son, which was marked as material Exts. V, VI. In paragraph 19, P.W. 10 stated that he along with others, who came along with him to the police station, identified the dead body of his son at the police station. In paragraph 20, P.W. 10 stated that Amod Singh, Bhola Singh and Dr. Awdhesh Singh were also arrested by the police, from whom H.M.T. wrist watch, pen and silver chain with locket (Hanumani) was recovered, over which the name of his son „R.K. Shahi‟ was found inscribed. The watch, pen, chain was marked as material Exts. VII, VIII, IX. In paragraph 21, P.W. 10 stated that in his absence his cousin (accused) has filed written report in the police station, which was under his pen and signature, which he identifies as Ext. 5. In paragraph 22, P.W. 10 stated that dead body of his deceased son was handed over to him after post mortem, whereafter his last rite was conducted in the parental village. P.W. 10 also stated in the same paragraph that he Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 81 identified all the accused persons. In paragraph 23, P.W. 10 stated that his statement was also recorded by the police. P.W. 10 admitted in paragraph 24 of his cross-examination that information about the present occurrence was given to the police by his cousin Hari Shahi who is presently accused in the case. He further stated that presently it is he who is prosecuting the case. He also stated that he filed protest petition in which he disclosed correct facts. He further stated that he has also filed a complaint case. In paragraph 25 of his cross examination P.W. 10 has stated that material exhibits of the case are not presently available and then stated that for calling for the material exhibits his Advocate has filed application. In paragraph 26 P.W. 10 having seen the shoe (material exhibit) stated that the same is smeared with soil. He denied the suggestion that shoe is not smeared with soil. He further stated that from the soul of the shoe it appears that „7‟ has been inscribed over the same which is readable to him. Having seen the Vakalatnama and the complaint petition P.W. 10, in paragraph 27 of his cross examination, has stated that both the documents contained his signature and were filed on his behalf in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate. Having seen the protest petition dated 19.05.2003 P.W. 10 in paragraph 29 has stated that the same was also filed on his behalf. P.W. 10 also admitted that he recorded his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 24.06.2003 before Sri Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 82 Hari Prasad, Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur. In paragraph 32 of his cross-examination P.W. 10 has stated that he recorded his statement before the Sub-Inspector of the case on several occasions but cannot confirm that the first statement was recorded on 5.2.2003. In paragraph 33 of his cross-examination P.W. 10 stated that on 24.02.2003 he had gone to the police station with jacket and the threatening letter, whereafter Sub-Inspector made enquiries from him and prepared the seizure list and again recorded his statement dated 24.06.2003 but he is not sure about the date of his second statement. In paragraph 35 of his cross-examination P.W. 10 also stated that after two months of the occurrence Vishwaranjan spoke to him on telephone disclosing his identity and stated that he is speaking from Chapra. In the same paragraph P.W. 10 has further stated that Vishwaranjan did not speak to him from Chapra on 1.3.2003. He also stated that he never informed Sub-Inspector that Vishwaranjan spoke to him from Chapra on 1.3.2003 and then volunteered to state that Vishwaranjan spoke to him from Chapra on 1.4.2003 and then refuted the suggestion that earlier he has not disclosed the contents of his talk dated 1.4.2003. In paragraph 36 of his cross-examination P.W. 10 has stated that caller I.D. has been installed in his telephone after 2-4 days of the occurrence. Telephone number, from which the calls were received, was forwarded to the police. It has also Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 83 transpired that the numbers were of a telephone booth but it could not be ascertained as to who was the owner of telephone booth. From code no. 6224, 2-3 calls were received. 2-3 calls were received from Muzaffarpur. Code no. 6224 is of Saraiya Bhagwanpur side. In paragraph 39 of his cross-examination P.W. 10 has denied the suggestion that he has not informed the Sub-Inspector about the fact that he learnt from his wife that Vishwaranjan was present half an hour before Babloo talked to Rajeev. He also denied the suggestion that he did not inform the Sub-Inspector that he learnt from his wife that Babloo granted tenancy to Rajeev on the recommendation of Vishwaranjan. In paragraph 40 of his cross-examination P.W. 10 has stated that he did state before the police that Rajeev having become tenant became familiar, intimate with Babloo. In the same paragraph P.W. 10 has stated that he did state before the Sub-Inspector that his wife informed him that Rajeev tenant had come along with a rickshaw at 5 P.M. He also stated that he did inform the Sub- Inspector that his wife did inform him that Rajeev stated that his relation resides in Bhagwanpur who has to deposit Rs. 20-25,000/- with Sahara India and he is to leave for outside in the morning, as such, it would be better that Babloo should presently come along with him, collect the money and complete the paper formalities. He further stated that he did inform the police that he learnt from his Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 84 wife that Rajeev stated that if the deposit is made through Babloo then his reputation will grow and he shall also be benefited. In the same paragraph P.W. 10 has stated that he did inform the Sub- Inspector that he learnt from his wife that Rajeev succeeded in duping Babloo as he agreed to go along with him. P.W. 10 further stated that he also inform the Sub-Inspector that he learnt from his wife that Rajeev had come along with a rickshaw and both went on the same rickshaw saying that they will return back within half an hour. In the same paragraph P.W. 10 has stated that he did inform the Sub-Inspector that he learnt from his wife that when Rajeev and Babloo did not return till late night, there was commotion in the family and sadness prevailed all over. In the same paragraph P.W. 10 has stated that he did inform the Sub-Inspector that he learnt from his wife that other members of the family, neighbours and tenants went towards Bhagwanpur and other places for searching the two. In the same paragraph P.W. 10 has also stated that he did inform the Sub- Inspector that he learnt from his wife that telephone calls were made by his wife, daughter in law on telephone numbers, which were written in the index of the diary. In the same paragraph P.W. 10 further stated that he did inform the Sub-Inspector that his wife informed him that the neighbours also came to his house in the morning and made enquiries about Babloo. In paragraph 41 of his Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 85 cross-examination P.W. 10 has stated that he did inform Sub- Inspector that he learnt from his wife that Vishwaranjan had come to his house after induction of the new tenant and 5 days prior to the occurrence along with another person, stayed in the house for about half an hour for chit-chat, took tea and thereafter went away stating that he is going to purchase clothes. In the same paragraph P.W. 10 has stated that he did inform the Sub-Inspector that he learnt from his wife that one day prior to the occurrence Vishwaranjan came to his house and asked his wife about the time of his return from Calcutta. In the same paragraph P.W. 10 has stated that he did inform the police that his wife informed Vishwaranjan that P.W. 10 is seriously ill in Calcutta and she and other members of the family are going to Calcutta within 4-5 days. P.W. 10 also stated in his cross- examination that he did inform the Sub-Inspector that his wife has informed him that Vishwaranjan having come down, went along with the same person who had come to her house 5 days earlier along with Vishwaranjan on a motorcycle. In paragraph 42, 43 of his cross- examination P.W. 10 has stated that he did inform the Sub-Inspector that one day after his arrival from Calcutta 2-3 ransom calls were received asking him to arrange money if he desires safe release of his son Babloo, who is in his custody. In paragraph 44 of his cross- examination P.W. 10 has stated that he did inform the Sub-Inspector Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 86 that Vishwaranjan was asking him, his wife and son to respond to the calls received from the abductors and arrange money for securing the release, failing which the work may be spoilt. In the same paragraph P.W. 10 has denied the suggestion that he has not stated before the Sub-Inspector that he told Vishwaranjan that ransom amount shall not be paid by him until he is satisfied that Babloo is alive and is in custody of abductors. In paragraph 45 of his cross-examination P.W. 10 has also denied the suggestion that his brother Raghunath Shahi and nephew Satish Shahi @ Sonu (P.W. 4) has not brought a polythene bag containing jacket of Raj Kumar Shahi and threatening letter from his paternal village. In paragraphs 46, 47 of his cross- examination P.W. 10 also stated that he learnt from his wife that Babloo had put on the same jacket while leaving the house and over the jacket name of Raj Kumar Shahi was inscribed and denied the suggestion that for giving the case a convincing touch fraud has been resorted to. In paragraph 46 of his cross-examination P.W. 10 has stated that he informed the police that Vishwaranjan was regularly coming to his house and was asking him that as proof has been made available he (P.W. 10) should make payment failing which his son will be killed. In paragraph 47 of his cross-examination P.W. 10 has stated that he did not have any talk with Vishwaranjan on 1.3.2003 and denied the suggestion that having spoken to Vishwaranjan on Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 87 1.3.2003 he is concealing the said fact as disclosure of the said fact is likely to spoil his case. In paragraph 48 of his cross-examination P.W. 10 has stated that he did inform the police that Vishwaranjan has spoken before him, his wife, son and others that abductors had allowed him to meet Babloo. P.W. 10 also stated in the same paragraph that he did inform the police that Vishwaranjan told him that he (P.W. 10) is now convinced about Babloo being alive and further asked to pay the ransom amount of Rs. 14 lakhs by arranging the same at the earliest and denied the suggestion that he has stated about payment of ransom amount of Rs. 14 lakhs for the first time in his examination in chief. In paragraph 51 of his cross-examination P.W. 10 has stated that Vishwaranjan having made telephone call from Chapra came to his house after 3-4 hours, explained the developments and asserted that Babloo is alive whom he had seen and he has also a son, as such, he will not speak lies and asked P.W. 10 to leave aside the worth of his money and to pay, such assertion of Vishwaranjan convinced P.W. 10 that his son is alive and he became ready to make payment of the ransom amount and paid the same to Vishwaranjan after 4 days either on 4th or 5th of the month. In paragraphs 53, 54, 55 of his cross-examination P.W. 10 has stated that he arranged the ransom amount of Rs. 14 lakhs at the instance of Vishwaranjan. He also gave the details of denomination of the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 88 currency notes which comprised Rs. 14 lakhs together with the persons from whom he procured the amount. In paragraph 58 of his cross-examination P.W. 10 has stated that he did inform the police that having given the ransom amount to Vishwaranjan, he came down along with him, his son, nephew and asked his nephew Satish @ Sonu to accompany Vishwaranjan on motorcycle for payment of ransom amount but Vishwaranjan refused to go along with him and stated that if he goes along with Sonu there may be danger and suggested that Mukesh (P.W. 6) should accompany him. P.W. 10 further asserted in the same paragraph that he did inform the police that both Mukesh and Vishwaranjan had gone on Yamaha motorcycle for payment of ransom amount after keeping the money in the dikky of the motorcycle. In paragraph 59 of his cross- examination P.W. 10 declined the suggestion that during investigation of the case he never stated about payment of ransom amount. In paragraph 60 of his cross-examination P.W. 10 has stated that he did inform the police that those who had gone to make payment of the ransom amount returned by 3-4 P.M. and Vishwaranjan further informed him that the ransom amount of Rs. 14 lakhs was paid to the same person who had shown him the victim and there is nothing to fear and Babloo shall return by 8-8.30 P.M. In paragraph 61 of his cross-examination P.W. 10 has stated that he did Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 89 inform the police that Vishwaranjan stayed in his house for the night and while leaving in the morning stated that he shall find out the reason as to why Babloo did not come back. In paragraph 62 of his cross-examination P.W. 10 has stated that in the night Vishwaranjan slept in his guest room along with his son Mukesh and 2-4 others, such fact is also known to the wife of P.W. 10. In paragraph 63 of his cross-examination P.W. 10 has further stated that few days after departure of Vishwaranjan he informed the Sub-Inspector about payment of ransom amount. In paragraph 64 of his cross- examination P.W. 10 has stated that he gave ransom amount to Vishwaranjan either on 4th or 5th April, 2003, whereafter Vishwaranjan stopped coming to his house. Information about payment of ransom amount to Vishwaranjan was given to the police after about one month. In the same paragraph P.W. 10 denied the suggestion that he did not hand over the ransom amount to Vishwaranjan and that is why disclosed such fact to the police after about one month of the delivery of the amount. In the same paragraph P.W. 10 volunteered that his nephew (P.W. 8) who is the co-brother (Sarhu) of Vishwaranjan asked Vishwaranjan in the marriage of his brother in law that even after he (Vishwaranjan) has received Rs. 14 lakhs Babloo Bhaiya has not returned, Vishwaranjan replied as to how he (P.W. 8) is concerned about the same. In the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 90 same paragraph P.W. 10 further stated that when he learnt about the aforesaid fact he suspected Vishwaranjan in the present occurrence. In the same paragraph P.W. 10 also stated that the statement which he has volunteered is true and that he did not inform the police about the same. He also stated in the same paragraph that it is incorrect to suggest that his police statement was not recorded one month after the date of alleged payment. In paragraph 65 of his cross- examination P.W. 10 has denied the suggestion that he stated for the first time in Court that Vishwaranjan asked for payment of ransom amount of Rs. 14 lakhs which was paid to him and he (P.W. 10) paid the said amount to Vishwaranjan but the said statement was not made to any police officer during investigation. In paragraph 66 of his cross-examination P.W. 10 has stated that in protest petition, complaint petition and the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. he has not stated about the factum of having made payment of ransom amount of Rs. 14 lakhs to Vishwaranjan. In the same paragraph P.W. 10 further volunteered that Vishwaranjan was always asking him neither to put much effort nor to inform senior police officer otherwise he will lose both his money and son and then assured him that he is looking into the matter and Babloo shall return soon. In paragraph 67 of his cross-examination P.W. 10 has stated that the statement, which he had volunteered above, has not been stated by Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 91 him in his examination in chief. In paragraph 68 of his cross- examination P.W. 10 has stated that he did inform the senior police officers about the fact which he has volunteered above, whereafter senior police officer asked him to call Vishwaranjan so as to enable them to interrogate him. In the same paragraph P.W. 10 stated that he informed Vishwaranjan, accordingly, but he refused to come, at times he was speaking on telephone asking P.W. 10 that he may be arrested by police. In paragraph 70 of his cross-examination P.W. 10 has stated that on 20th April, 2003 his nephew Sandeep (P.W. 8) had gone to his in-laws house to attend the marriage of his brother in law, returned therefrom after 8 days and informed P.W. 10 that he (P.W.
8) spoke to Vishwaranjan as to why Babloo Bhaiya did not return, even after he received Rs. 14 lakhs, then Vishwaranjan asked P.W. 8 that what concern he has in the matter. In the same paragraph P.W. 10 denied the suggestion that he did not speak to P.W. 8 about Vishwaranjan and that the aforesaid information derived by P.W. 10 from P.W. 8 about Vishwaranjan is incorrect. In paragraph 71 of his cross-examination P.W. 10 stated that when he suspected Vishwaranjan he informed the police about the facts which he has volunteered above. In the same paragraph P.W. 10 admitted that he does not remember the date on which he suspected Vishwaranjan. In paragraph 73 of his cross-examination P.W. 10 has stated that he did Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 92 inform the police about the contents of his telephonic conversation which he had with Vishwaranjan from Chapra. In the same paragraph he also stated that he did inform the police that after receiving the ransom amount Vishwaranjan was avoiding him. In paragraph 74 of his cross-examination P.W. 10 has stated that he does not have any documentary proof of having arranged Rs. 14 lakhs. In paragraph 75 of his cross-examination P.W. 10 has stated that in his presence Vishwaranjan did not record any confessional statement before the police. In paragraph 76 of his cross-examination P.W. 10 has stated that in his presence Vishwaranjan did not disclose the real name of tenant. In paragraph 77 of his cross-examination P.W. 10 has stated that he is unaware of the contents of the disclosure made by Vishwaranjan to the police from time to time. In paragraph 78 of his cross-examination P.W. 10 stated that in his presence Vishwaranjan was not taken to Bahilwara for recovery of the dead body. In the same paragraph P.W. 10 also stated that information about recovery of the dead body he has derived from the police. In paragraph 79 of his cross-examination P.W. 10 has denied the suggestion that he has wrongly identified socks and purse of his son. In paragraph 81 of his cross-examination P.W. 10 has stated that in his presence pit was not dug. In the same paragraph P.W. 10 further stated that in his presence Nandlal has not informed the police about digging the pit. In the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 93 same paragraph he further volunteered that he learnt the fact about digging the pit from the police. In the same paragraph P.W. 10 also stated that neither the dead body of his son was exhumed in his presence nor any of his personal belongings was recovered. In paragraph 82 of his cross-examination P.W. 10 has stated that for the present, the shoe, clothes etc. of his son is not available. In Court when those articles were produced P.W. 10 identified them. The shoe, pant was smeared with soil. In the same paragraph P.W. 10 stated that it is incorrect to suggest that the date on which he was shown personal belongings of his son, he was only asked about his shoe and not about his other belongings. There was no special mark on the leather jacket of his son. P.W 10 denied the suggestion that assertion made by him about the personal belongings of his son is false. In paragraph 83 of his cross-examination P.W. 10 has stated that his all the family members are insured, Babloo was also insured but he does not remember the amount for which he was insured. In the same paragraph he stated that insurance claim has been made which shall be paid after the case is disposed of. In paragraph 84 of his cross-examination P.W. 10 has admitted that he identified the dead body of his son when the same was brought at the police station. In the same paragraph he also stated that it is incorrect to suggest that dead body which he identified was not the dead body of Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 94 a human being but was only a skeleton. In paragraph 85 of his cross- examination P.W. 10 has stated that the dead body was 5½ ft. in length with hair on the head. In the same paragraph P.W. 10 clarified that he estimated the length of the dead body. The tooth was broken. In paragraph 86 of his cross-examination P.W. 10 stated that he is not aware whether any photograph of the dead body was taken. In paragraph 87 of his cross-examination P.W. 10 stated that he did not state about the threat being extended by Vishwaranjan in the protest petition, complaint petition and the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. In paragraph 88 of his cross-examination P.W. 10 has refuted the suggestion that he has not stated before the police that house was given on rent to Rajeev on the recommendation of Vishwaranjan. In paragraph 89 of his cross-examination P.W. 10 has stated that statement about the house having been let out on the recommendation of Vishwaranjan has not been made in the F.I.R., protest petition, complaint and the 164 Cr.P.C. statement. In paragraph 91 of his cross-examination P.W. 10 has stated that the insurance claim of his son has been filed by his wife. In paragraph 94 of his cross-examination P.W. 10 has denied the suggestion that at the time of occurrence Vishwaranjan was residing in Patna in connection with illness of his wife. In paragraph 96 of his cross- examination P.W. 10 has refuted the suggestion that marriage of Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 95 Babloo was mediated by Vishwaranjan and further asserted that he had only rendered help in hiring the vehicle. In the same paragraph P.W. 10 refuted the further suggestion that on 4.5.2003 he asked Vishwaranjan to become a witness against Deepak Shahi and on his refusal to do so threatened him and his brother, whereafter Vishwaranjan filed informatory petition dated 5.5.2003 in the court of S.D.J.M., West Muzaffarpur. In paragraph 98 of his cross- examination P.W. 10 has stated that he was not instrumental in informant Hari Shahi going to jail. In the same paragraph P.W. 10 further stated that it is incorrect to suggest that on 24.06.2003 he along with his son Mukesh had gone to Bahilwara to persuade Vishwaranjan to record false evidence against Deepak Shahi and on his refusal to do so asked him to put signature on a written complaint which was also refused whereafter he was subjected to assault by brick-bat and after treatment filed Complaint Case No. 873/2003 on 26.06.2003 (incorrectly written as 26.03.2003 at page 387 of the brief) which was referred to police for investigation under Sub- section (3) of Section 156 Cr.P.C. and then Saraiya P.S. Case No. 157/03 was registered and news item to that effect was published in Hindustan newspaper dated 27.06.2003. In the same paragraph P.W. 10 also refuted the suggestion that after publication of the news item he took the police in collusion, persuaded the police to obtain process Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 96 for his arrest on 30.06.2003 from the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur. In the same paragraph P.W. 10 also stated that he is not aware about any application having been filed by Vishwaranjan for grant of bail in the event of arrest on 15.07.2003. In paragraph 99 of his cross-examination P.W. 10 has denied the suggestion that he has wrongly stated in his evidence that he received telephone call from Vishwaranjan in which he claimed that he was speaking from Chapra. In the same paragraph P.W. 10 also denied the suggestion that on the same day Vishwaranjan came to his house and asserted that he met Babloo at Chapra. In paragraph 100 of his cross-examination P.W. 10 has denied the suggestion that he has fabricated the evidence against Vishwaranjan. In paragraph 103 of his cross-examination P.W. 10 has stated that he disclosed the fact of having made payment of ransom amount to police in the last week of April, 2003. In paragraph 104 of his cross-examination P.W. 10 has stated that he made police statement as also statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 24.06.2003 and also denied the suggestion that he recorded his police statement on 24.06.2003 after filing of the complaint by Vishwaranjan. In paragraphs 106, 107, 108 of his cross-examination P.W. 10 has refuted the suggestion that he got Vishwaranjan arrested on 15.09.2003, which was the date fixed for final orders on his anticipatory bail petition and he got Vishwaranjan Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 97 subjected to third degree treatment by the police and that when he was about to die, was made to disappear, treated in Sadar Hospital before his production in Court, his father Ram Sogarath Singh filed petition in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, on the basis of which show cause notice was also issued to the police. In paragraph 110 of his cross-examination P.W. 10 has refuted the suggestion that Vishwaranjan filed petition dated 19.09.2003 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate that he was mercilessly assaulted by the police and asked to put signature on the blank paper and that his treatment by doctor is necessary, on the basis of which he remained in jail hospital for about one year. In paragraphs 112, 113 of his cross- examination P.W. 10 refuted the suggestion that his elder brother, who is also his younger co-brother, is not likely to support the prosecution case as his two sons, namely, P.Ws. 4, 8 supported the prosecution case on the promise of allurement but on failure to keep the promise his brother is not likely to support the prosecution case in Court. In paragraph 114 of his cross-examination P.W. 10 stated that it is incorrect to suggest that Vishwaranjan has not informed him that he was abducted from Bibiganj railway crossing in white Sumo vehicle and his eyes were folded. In the same paragraph P.W. 10 also refuted the suggestion that he has deposed falsely that Vishwaranjan has told him that he met Babloo. In paragraph 115 of his cross- Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 98 examination P.W. 10 has stated that he is unaware about the amount for which his son Babloo was ensured. In paragraph 116 of his cross- examination P.W. 10 has denied the suggestion that he is trying to conceal the amount for which his son was ensured as the amount is heavy. In the same paragraph P.W. 10 further refuted the suggestion that for seeking insurance claim he has identified an unknown skeleton to be that of his son and on that basis he is trying to raise the insurance claim for Babloo. In paragraph 117 of his cross- examination P.W. 10 has stated that he does not have any documentary proof of the recovery of the dead body of his son. In paragraph 118 of his cross-examination P.W. 10 has stated that the dead body was emanating foul smell and suggestion to the contrary is not correct and he is deposing falsely. In paragraph 119 of his cross- examination P.W. 10 having seen the pen, chain with locket on which R.K. Shahi was inscribed stated that it is not the same inscription, as is inscribed on the pen, which is material exhibit and further stated that inscription of R.K. Shahi on both the pen is not in the same style. In paragraph 120 of his cross-examination P.W. 10 has stated that the material exhibit-IX (watch) is an old watch and suggestion that the same is brand new, unused is incorrect and that he does not have any paper concerning the watch as the same was purchased by his son. In paragraph 122 of his cross-examination Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 99 P.W. 10 has refuted the suggestion that material exhibit-I (purse) and the identity card has been implanted by him to create evidence in the case. In paragraph 123 of his cross-examination P.W. 10 has stated that his son was an agent of Sahara India but he does not have any document to support the same and that no such document was also produced during investigation. In paragraph 124 of his cross- examination P.W. 10 has stated that he has been working in Calcutta for 40 years and is an electrical goods supplier, besides P.W. 10 his son Mukesh (P.W. 6), nephew Sandeep (P.W. 8) as also his driver work in the shop. In paragraph 125 of his cross-examination P.W. 10 has stated that his younger son (deceased) was B.A. pass. In the same paragraph P.W. 10 declined the suggestion that Babloo was stubborn and did not pay heed to his orders and that is why P.W. 10 did not keep Babloo with him in Calcutta. In paragraph 126 of his cross- examination P.W. 10 has stated that Babloo was concerned with his business but after marriage he served as agent of Sahara India for the last three years prior to the occurrence. In the same paragraph P.W. 10 also stated that it is not a fact that Babloo was his neglected child and he did not love him. In paragraph 127 of his cross-examination P.W. 10 stated that having heard the news about disappearance of Babloo, he came to Muzaffarpur after three days. In paragraph 129 of his cross-examination P.W. 10 has stated that he new from his wife Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 100 about the occurrence. In paragraph 130 of his cross-examination P.W. 10 stated that Babloo was insured with policy of Rs. 3.5 lakhs but he has not claimed the insurance amount so far. In paragraph 134 of his cross-examination P.W. 10 stated that Amod Singh and Bhola were not arrested in his presence. In the same paragraph he further stated that about Amod and Bhola he has given hearsay statement. In the same paragraph P.W. 10 also stated that after his return he did not talk to Bhola and Amod, had met them once earlier in the year 1999 in the house of Vishwaranjan at the time of marriage of Babloo when he had gone to the house of Vishwaranjan, who introduced them as his partner in business of rearing fish. In the same paragraph P.W. 10 also stated that he has not stated such fact to any one. In the same paragraph P.W. 10 further stated that after arrest of Bhola and Amod, he saw them but he did not disclose the aforesaid fact to the police. In paragraph 136 of his cross-examination P.W. 10 has stated that he does not remember whether he has stated before the Magistrate in his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that his son was disabled. In the same paragraph P.W. 10 has also stated that it is incorrect to state that he used to neglect his son as he was disabled and for this reason he was residing in Muzaffarpur along with his mother. In the same paragraph P.W. 10 denied the suggestion that his wife does not reside with him in Calcutta and jointly reside with son Babloo. In the same Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 101 paragraph P.W. 10 also denied the suggestion that from his income he was not giving any money to Babloo. In the same paragraph P.W. 10 also denied the suggestion that after marriage when his children were born Babloo faced difficulty in maintaining his family was disappointed and used to run away from home. In the same paragraph P.W. 10 also denied the suggestion that his son Mukesh was not willing to keep Babloo with him at Calcutta. In paragraph 143 of his cross-examination P.W. 10 has stated that after the occurrence when he came to Muzaffarpur he remained at Muzaffarpur for 10-11 months. In paragraph 148 of his cross- examination P.W. 10 stated that all the male, female members of his family used to tie wrist watch and that he can say about the watch being used by each of his family members but he is not in a position to state as to whose watch has been inscribed with his name. In paragraph 151 of his cross-examination P.W. 10 has stated that Vishwaranjan informed him that Awadhesh Thakur is a doctor. In paragraph 155 of his cross-examination P.W. 10 has stated that the pen, watch and chain were not recovered in his presence and police informed him that the aforesaid three items have been recovered from Dr. Awadhesh Singh, Bhola Singh and Amod Singh. In the same paragraph P.W. 10 stated that he does not remember the place from where the aforesaid articles were recovered. In paragraph 159 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 102 of his cross-examination P.W. 10 has denied the suggestion that at his instance Sub-Inspector hatched up a conspiracy and has produced the material exhibit (pen) and other articles. In paragraph 161 of the cross-examination P.W. 10 has admitted that after one month of the occurrence son in law of Hari Shahi died. In paragraph 163 of his cross-examination P.W. 10 has stated that after 8 months of the occurrence he was informed by the police the real name of Rajeev is Ajit. In the same paragraph P.W. 10 also stated that Ajit was seen by him earlier also. In paragraph 164 of his cross-examination P.W. 10 has stated that he did not make enquiry about Ajit at his level and when his wife came in Court to depose identified Ajit and P.W. 10 knew about Ajit from her. In paragraph 166 of his cross-examination P.W. 10 has denied the suggestion that his son was neither killed nor Rs. 14 lakhs was paid as ransom. In the same paragraph P.W. 10 has also denied the suggestion that his son has disappeared and in order to get the insurance amount he has wrongly claimed and for this it was necessary to declare Babloo dead. P.W. 10 also denied the suggestion that he could not arrange the ransom amount of Rs. 14 lakhs and the factum of ransom amount being paid is a false statement. In paragraph 170 of his cross-examination P.W. 10 has denied the suggestion that the dead body which he identified as of Babloo was not the dead body of Babloo. In paragraph 171 of his Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 103 cross-examination P.W. 10 has stated that he did not state before the Sub-Inspector that he went to the orchard in search of the dead body at the instance of Nandlal.
(xi). P.W. 11 Bishwanath Kumar Shukla is resident of village Bahilwara. He has stated in his evidence that occurrence took place on 31.01.2003. On 30.09.2003 at 8 A.M. police had taken Ajit Kumar and Vishwaranjan Singh to an orchard adjacent to the house of Vishwaranjan Singh. In the light of the statement made by Ajit Kumar and Vishwaranjan a pit was dug to find out the dead body but the dead body was not found, a purse, socks was recovered from the pit and seized in presence of P.W. 11, who along with Sundeshwar Singh put his signature over the seizure list. Vishwaranjan Singh and Ajit Kumar also put their signature over the seizure list. The seizure list was prepared by Chandeshwar Prasad Yadav, Officer in Charge, Brahmpura, P.W. 11 identified the said seizure list prepared by Chandeshwar Prasad Yadav on which the witness and Sundeshwar Singh had put their signature. The seizure list was marked as Ext. 1/1. In paragraph 2, P.W. 11, having seen the purse and socks, material Exts. I, III, stated that it is the same purse and socks which was recovered from the pit. He further stated that the purse is in broken condition but was not so at the time of its recovery. In paragraph 3, 4 P.W. 11 stated that one month after the recovery of Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 104 the purse and the socks, police again visited the same orchard with Nandlal Sah driver and as per his disclosure dead body of Raj Kumar Shahi @ Babloo Shahi along with black pant, sports shoe and socks was exhumed from the banana orchard of Mithu Singh situate adjacent to the mango orchard, wherefrom purse, socks was earlier recovered. Inquest report of the dead body was prepared by Chandeshwar Prasad Yadav, Officer in Charge of Brahmpura P.S., over which P.W. 11 also put his signature. Having seen the photo copy of the inquest report, P.W. 11 stated that he put his signature over the inquest report with endorsement that the pit was dug in his presence, from which decomposed body of Raj Kumar Shahi was recovered. P.W. 11 further wrote on the inquest report that Raj Kumar Shahi was killed and thereafter his body has been buried. Photo copy of the inquest report was marked as Ext. „Y‟ for identification. In paragraph 5, P.W. 11 having seen material Exts. III, V, VI stated that the same was also recovered from the pit in his presence. In paragraph 6, P.W. 11 stated that the two seizure lists, one for the watch and the other for the pen, was prepared by the Officer in Charge in his presence. Pen was recovered from the pocket of Dr. Awdhesh Kumar. The watch was recovered from the wrist of Bhola Singh. The two seizure lists were prepared by carbon process and he put his signature on both the seizure lists. The two signatures Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 105 were marked as Ext. 3/6, 3/7. P.W. 11, having seen material Exts. VII, IX, stated that both the material Exhibits were recovered from the two accused persons present in dock. In paragraph 7, P.W. 11 having seen the original inquest report stated that the same was prepared by Chandeshwar Prasad Yadav, Officer in Charge, Brahmpura over which he (P.W. 11), Ram Kumar Thakur and Asharfi Rai put their signature. The original inquest report was marked as Ext. 6. In paragraph 8, P.W. 11 stated that he has a pond adjacent to the road in village Bahilwara in which he is rearing fish. In the month of the occurrence he was at his pond and saw one Ambassador car stopping near the pond around 8-8.30 in the night. P.W. 11 in torch light saw that the car was being driven by driver Nandlal. Besides Nandlal, Amod Singh, Ajit Kumar, Bhola Singh and few others, whom the witness could not identify, were in the car. The car swiftly went towards west. Next morning P.W. 11 met his co-villager Nandlal Sah driver and asked him as to why he was driving the car swiftly. Nandlal driver, thereafter informed that he was driving the car swiftly as he was engaged in connection with emergency work of Vishwaranjan and Amod Singh. P.W. 11 also stated that the date on which dead body was recovered, he recorded his aforesaid statement before the police. P.W. 11 also identified few of the accused persons as his villager or resident of adjoining village. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 106 In paragraphs 10, 11 of his cross-examination P.W. 11 has stated that he does not remember the plot number of his own orchard and the orchard concerned with the case. In paragraphs 12, 13, 15 of his cross-examination P.W. 11 clarified that the dead body was recovered on 29.10.2003 and not the skeleton. In the same paragraph P.W. 11 stated that he does not remember the boundary of the plot from where the dead body was recovered. In the same paragraph P.W. 11 further gave detailed description and stage of decomposition of the body. In paragraph 14 of his cross-examination P.W. 11 stated that on 30.09.2003 purse, socks of the victim was recovered from a pit but he is unable to give the boundary of the pit from which purse, socks of the victim was recovered. In the same paragraph P.W. 11 further stated that on both the dates of recovery i.e. 29.10.2003 and 30.09.2003 about thousand persons were present. From amongst those present at the time of recovery P.W. 11 named few of his co- villagers including their caste and stated that many of them were educated. In the same paragraph P.W. 11 also admitted that his daughter is married to the son of Rama Shankar Shahi who is the elder brother of P.W. 10. In paragraphs 16, 17 of his cross- examination P.W. 11 stated that having heard din, bustle he went to the place from where recoveries were made but before his arrival at the place of recovery on both the dates about 50-100 persons had Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 107 already arrived along with police. P.W. 11 also clarified that digging on the first day began 10-20 minutes after his arrival but on the second day the digging had already begun before his arrival. In paragraph 18 of his cross-examination P.W. 11 having seen the cloths, sole of the shoe (material exhibit VI) stated that the shoe is numbered as „7‟. In paragraph 19 of his cross-examination P.W. 11 further stated that at the time of recovery of the dead body socks of the deceased was found in one of his feet, which is not the socks shown to him already marked material Exhibit-III. In paragraph 20 of his cross-examination P.W. 11 stated that the date from which he is being examined in this case he has only seen one socks, which was not recovered along with the dead body. The other socks recovered earlier is not being presently shown to him. In paragraph 21 of his cross-examination P.W. 11 stated that he has not seen the papers of the land of Vishwaranjan. In paragraph 22 of his cross-examination P.W. 11 further stated that he does not have land near the land from which recoveries were made. In paragraph 23 of his cross- examination P.W. 11 furnished the plot number of his pond referred to in his evidence and further clarified that pond comprises of his khatiyani as also purchased land, paper whereof he can furnish. In paragraph 24 of his cross-examination P.W. 11 stated that his statement before the Investigating Officer was recorded only once. In Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 108 paragraph 25 of his cross-examination P.W. 11 stated that he learnt about the occurrence after 2-3 days but his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer after 8-9 months. In paragraph 26 of his cross-examination P.W. 11 stated that the socks and the purse was recovered from the banana orchard situate by the side of the orchard of Vishwaranjan. In the same paragraph P.W. 11 further stated that he did not state before the police that socks, purse was recovered from banana orchard situate by the side of the orchard of Vishwaranjan. In paragraph 27 of his cross-examination P.W. 11 confirmed that the place from where the dead body was recovered does not have any house, habitation around. In paragraph 28 of his cross-examination P.W. 11 stated that his house is 1½-2 kilometers away from the place from where recoveries were made and further stated that the house of his co-villagers Ram Pravesh, Ram Dayal Shukla, Balondar Das and Ram Lakhan Das is closer from the place where recoveries were made. In paragraph 29 of his cross- examination P.W. 11 stated that he can give the number of the seizure lists on which he put his signature after perusing the same. In paragraph 30 of his cross-examination P.W. 11 stated that at the time of his evidence witness Gauri Shankar Shahi is present in Court. In paragraph 31 of his cross-examination P.W. 11 stated that besides being engaged in agriculture work he is also working in College. In Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 109 paragraph 32 of his cross-examination P.W. 11 clarified that fish reared in his pond is utilized by him for personal consumption and the surplus is sold. In paragraph 33 of his cross-examination P.W. 11 stated that he has put his signature on the seizure list thrice on different dates. The second signature was put one month after the first signature and the third signature was put after 3-4 months. In the same paragraph P.W. 11 further clarified that his statement was recorded after he put his second signature on the seizure list. In paragraph 34 of his cross-examination P.W. 11 stated that there was no prior announcement about the arrival of the Investigating Officer for recovery of the dead body in the village in the instant case. He, however, stated that din, bustle used to be raised after arrival of the police in the village for recovery of the dead body but he could not say the time after which he used to reach the place of recovery. Digging remained in progress. In paragraph 35 of his cross- examination P.W. 11 clarified that he has put his signature on three seizure lists. One by which purse, socks was seized. The other by which the dead body full-pant and another socks of the deceased was seized. Third time P.W. 11 put his signature on the two seizure lists at the police station by which pen, wrist watch of the deceased was seized from Dr. Awadhesh Thakur and Bhola Singh. In paragraphs 36, 37 of his cross-examination P.W. 11 stated that the orchard is Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 110 within 3-4 acres of land belonging to different farmers in which pit was dug. In the same paragraph P.W. 11 further stated that on 30.09.2003 digging was made in the banana orchard but he does not remember the name of the labourers engaged to dig the pit. In paragraphs 38, 39, 40 of his cross-examination P.W. 11 stated that the dead body recovered from the pit was carried on a police jeep and denied the suggestion that on the same place earlier a dead body was buried and that to implicate Vishwaranjan on 30.09.2003 socks, purse was planted and recovered. Similarly the full-pant, shoe and one socks was planted in collusion with the prosecution party and recovered on 29.10.2003. P.W. 11 denied the suggestion in paragraph 40 that the socks recovered on 29.10.2003 did not match the socks recovered on 30.09.2003 and to conceal such infirmity socks was not mentioned in the seizure list dated 29.10.2003. In paragraph 41 P.W. 11 stated that he does not remember the dates of arrest of Amod but stated that Bhola was arrested on 6.2.2004. He further clarified in the same paragraph that both were not arrested in his presence. In Paragraph 42 of his cross-examination P.W. 11 estimated the distance between his house and Brahmpura P.S. as 30- 40 kilometers. In paragraph 43 of his cross-examination P.W. 11 confirmed that the first seizure list was made on 30.09.2003, second seizure list was made on 29.10.2003 and the third on 6.2.2004. In the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 111 same paragraph P.W. 11 further clarified that the date on which he put his signature on the seizure list was not noted by him but he has given the dates on which he put his signature on the seizure list on the basis of his memory. In paragraphs 44, 45 of his cross- examination P.W. 11 stated that the Investigating Officer asked him to put his signature on the seizure list after the same is prepared, while saying so the Investigating Officer was standing on the verandah with 1-2 policeman and the witness was on the ground along with police personnel and 5-7 others. In paragraph 47 of his cross-examination P.W. 11 stated that he is not aware as to why Investigating Officer asked him to put his signature on the seizure list which can be clarified by him only. In paragraphs 48, 49, 50 of his cross-examination P.W. 11 stated that he went to the police station to meet Ramakant Shukla tenant whose wife is serving in the telephone department and he also perhaps become witness on the seizure list but he has not asked him to become witness. In paragraph 51 of his cross-examination P.W. 11 stated that he does not remember at what time he visited the police station for putting his signature on the seizure list. In paragraph 52 of his cross-examination P.W. 11 denied the suggestion that he has become a seizure list witness to help Shiv Shankar Shahi, whose elder brother is his Samdhi. In paragraph 53 of his cross-examination P.W. 11 stated that out of three seizure lists Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 112 two were made in village and one at the police station. In the same paragraph P.W. 11 further stated that out of his own volition he went to the place of recovery in the village and put his signature on the seizure list. In paragraph 56 of his cross-examination P.W. 11 stated that there was rumour in the area that the dead body of Babloo has been buried but he did not report such fact to any one as people were already aware about such fact. In paragraph 57 of his cross- examination P.W. 11 stated that he did not state such fact to any one in the house of P.W. 10. In paragraph 58 of his cross-examination P.W. 11 stated that the place from where the dead body was recovered is a secluded place and used as a pasture for the cattle. In paragraph 59 of his cross-examination P.W. 11 confirmed that he is on talking terms with his father and denied the suggestion that he was asked by his father not to depose in a false case, whereafter he stopped talking to him. In paragraph 61 of his cross-examination P.W. 11 stated that he is not aware about the date, time and place of arrest of the accused persons. In paragraph 62 of his cross- examination P.W. 11 clarified that before his arrival at the police station accused persons were there but he cannot say about the duration from which they were at the police station. In paragraph 63 P.W. 11 has given the location of Brahmpua P.S. and stated in paragraph 64 that he is not aware as to whether any other person was Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 113 called at the police station to put his signature on the seizure list. In paragraph 65 of his cross-examination P.W. 11 stated that Ashok Kumar Pandey searched the accused and asked P.W. 11 to put his signature over the seizure list, whereafter he went along with Ramakant Shukla (P.W. 1). In paragraph 66 of his cross-examination P.W. 11 stated that the Sub-Inspector who searched the accused did not offer his search earlier. In paragraph 68 of his cross-examination P.W. 11 stated that the pen material exhibit marked earlier is not presently available in Court. In paragraph 69 of his cross- examination P.W. 11 stated that he was not called at the police station to become witness, rather he has gone to police station to meet Ramakant Shukla in connection with his work. In paragraph 70 of his cross-examination P.W. 11 stated that the pen material exhibit VII was not purchased in his presence and he is not aware about the different pen which has been purchased by the members of the family of the deceased. In the same paragraph P.W. 11 further stated that the pen material exhibit was of deep red colour and denied the suggestion that the pen material exhibit was neither purchased from the market nor the name of Babloo was inscribed over the same and made exhibit in the case after taking the police in collusion. In paragraph 71 of his cross-examination P.W. 11 admitted that accused Nandlal is his co-villager and denied the suggestion that he was Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 114 called at the police station at the time of recording of the disclosure statement by Nandlal and that the dead body was not recovered at his instance. P.W. 11 further denied the suggestion that Nandlal was not present at the time of recovery of the dead body and has been implicated in the case on account of old village enmity. In paragraph 73 of his cross-examination P.W. 11 stated that he is known to Ajit Kumar for the last 10-12 years but has not visited his parental home as he had come to his village home once in connection with purchase of fish reared in his pond. In the same paragraph P.W. 11 clarified that he never visited the parental home of Ajit Kumar. In paragraph 73 P.W. 11 denied the suggestion that he had never seen Ajit and that he has been falsely implicated in the present case.
(xii). P.W. 12 Rabindar Kumar Shahi is the cousin of the deceased. He has stated in his evidence that on 3.11.2003 he had gone to the office of Circle Officer, Kanti for identifying the belongings of the deceased, namely, one brown socks smeared with soil, one black leather three fold purse containing a card over which "Bhartiya Sanrakshan Upbhokta" was written, which was identified by him. Having seen the T.I. Chart, P.W. 12 stated that the same was prepared by the Circle Officer by carbon process, over which P.W. 12, Mukesh Kumar Shahi (P.W. 6) and Satish Kumar Shahi (P.W. 4) put their signature. Signature of P.W. 12 was marked as Ext. 3/7. In Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 115 paragraph 2, P.W. 12 further stated that he had also gone to the office of Circle Officer, Musahari on 24.05.2004 for identifying the belongings of the deceased and identified one red coloured pen, H.M.T. wrist watch and silver chain. After identification T.I. Chart was prepared, over which P.W. 12, Birendar Choudhary and Krishna Mohan Kumar also put their signature, which P.W. 12 identified and stated that the witnesses put their signature over the T.I. Chart in his presence. Signature of P.W. 12 and two other witnesses was marked as Exts. 3/8, 3/9, 3/10 respectively. In paragraph 3, P.W. 12 stated that he has also gone to the office of the Circle Officer, Kanti for identifying the belongings of the deceased, namely, purse and socks, which has already been marked as material Exts. I, II. In paragraph 4, P.W. 12 stated that he also went to the office of Circle Officer, Musahari and identified before him the pen, wrist watch, chain of the deceased, which is marked as material Exts. VII, IX and VIII. In paragraph 5, P.W. 12 stated that Anjani Kumar and Vinay Jha have put their signature over search cum seizure list dated 1.4.2004 in his presence. Having seen the two signatures P.W. 12 identified the same which was marked as Exts. 3/11 and 3/12. In paragraph 6, P.W. 12 stated that he recorded his statement before the police. In paragraph 7 of his cross-examination P.W. 12 stated that he had gone to Kanti on 3.11.2003 and to the Camp Office of the Circle Officer, Mushahari Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 116 on 24.05.2004 to identify the personal belongings of Babloo in Test Identification Parade. In paragraphs 8, 9 P.W. 12 stated that in Test Identification Parade purse, socks, wrist watch, pen and silver chain was kept in the office of Circle Officer, Kanti, Camp Office Circle Officer, Mushahari in the proportion of 8 : 9, 9 : 9 respectively and denied the suggestion that items were not placed for Test Identification Parade in the proportion of 9 : 9. In paragraph 10 of his cross-examination P.W. 12 has stated that he is separate from P.W. 10 for about 15-16 years and that his eldest uncle Kedar Nath Shahi also became separate along with him but P.Ws. 10 and Raghunath Shahi are together. P.W. 12 further denied the suggestion that two are not joint. In paragraph 11 of his cross-examination P.W. 12 has stated that in the present case two of the sons of Raghunath Shahi, Sandeep Kumar Shahi @ Pappu and Satish Kumar Shahi @ Sonu have already been examined. In paragraph 12 of his cross- examination P.W. 12 has stated that Raghunath Shahi is a witness in the case and he is alive. In the same paragraph P.W. 12 denied the suggestion that Raghunath Shahi refused to appear as a witness as the case is false, whereafter P.W. 10 separated him. In the same paragraph P.W. 12 further volunteered that Raghunath Shahi is seriously ill and unable to move and he can produce the medical certificate of Dr. Braj Bhushan and further denied the suggestion that Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 117 there is no doctor by the name of Braj Bhushan in Imli Chatti. In paragraph 13 of his cross-examination P.W. 12 has stated that he is not aware about the name of the two Circle Officers before whom Test Identification Parade of the personal belongings of Babloo was conducted, however, estimated their age between 40-45 years. In paragraph 15 of his cross-examination P.W. 12 has stated that Test Identification Parade was conducted in the office room of both the Circle Officers where besides the Circle Officer 1-2 persons were present whom the witness could not recognize. In the same paragraph P.W. 12 further stated that in the campus of the block office he had seen armed policeman. In the same paragraph P.W. 12 further stated that he identified pen, watch, chain without reading the name as the articles were wrapped with paper. After identifying the article witness picked up the article and saw that the name was written over the articles. The material exhibits were shown to the witness in Court and he stated that at the time of the Test Identification Parade the same were wrapped in paper but for the present the articles are unwrapped and denied the suggestion that he had not gone to participate in the Test Identification Parade for identifying the articles and that has given false evidence. In paragraph 17 of his cross-examination P.W. 12 has stated that he is not aware about the time when the victim used to purchase pen and further stated that he Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 118 is not aware when the victim has purchased the pen material exhibit. He further stated that victim used to inscribe his name over his belongings. In paragraphs 18, 21, 22 of his cross-examination P.W. 12 stated that after receipt of information from the Investigating Officer he went for taking part in Test Identification Parade for identifying the articles of the victim held at Kanti and Mushahari, which is at a distance of 13, 20 kilometers respectively from his house and denied the suggestion that as per direction of the police the articles were purchased from the market, the name of the victim inscribed over the same and collusively identified in the parade. In paragraph 19 of his cross-examination P.W. 12 stated that Deepak Kumar Shahi is his cousin. In paragraph 20 of his cross-examination P.W. 12 stated that Circle Officer had not issued any summons to him and the witness saw the articles for the first time in the circle office. In paragraph 23 of his cross-examination P.W. 12 stated that he put his signature over Test Identification Chart after perusing its contents but did not note the date of the Test Identification Parade which he recollects as per his memory and further recollects that the dead body was recovered. P.W. 12 also stated that he put his signature over the Test Identification Chart once at Kanti and thereafter at Mushahari. He further stated that Test Identification Chart was completely written. In the same paragraph P.W. 12 stated Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 119 that he does not remember as to whether there was a certificate at the back of the Test Identification Chart. Test Identification Chart did contain the signature of the officer. P.W. 12 further stated that he is a matriculate and that officer has not put his signature on the back of the Test Identification Chart where the certificate is printed. P.W. 12 further stated that Circle Officer, Mushahari asked him to put his signature and that he put his signature after 15-20 minutes of his arrival. P.W. 12 also stated that the articles were kept in front of him where he has gone. P.W. 12 further stated that police has informed him about the article which was to be identified by him and then volunteered that police had not disclosed him about the articles. He also stated that paper was pasted on all the articles. Besides the article(s) identified by him there were other similar eight articles also kept in the Test Identification Parade. Having identified the article, P.W. 12 further stated in the same paragraph that he identified article and found R.K. Shahi inscribed over the same. In paragraph 24 P.W. 12 stated that two other persons also identified the articles but at the time P.W. 12 proceeded to identify the articles they were not present. In paragraph 25 of his cross-examination P.W. 12 stated that he went to the place where the articles were kept for identification and after having seen the articles identified the same within a minute. In paragraph 26 of his cross-examination P.W. 12 stated that he has Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 120 seen policeman outside the place where he had come for Test Identification Parade but did not speak to them. In paragraph 27 of his cross-examination P.W. 12 stated that he put his signature on the Test Identification Chart and on no other document and after waiting for 10-15 minutes came back. In paragraph 28 of his cross- examination P.W. 12 stated that entire Test Identification Chart was written in his presence and that P.W. 12 put his signature over the carbon copy of the Test Identification Chart. The carbon copy over which P.W. 12 put his signature has been shown to the witness in Court. P.W. 12 further stated that he also put his signature on the original Test Identification Chart and again stated that he also put his signature on the carbon copy of the Test Identification Chart. The original Test Identification Chart remained with the Circle Officer which the witness had no occasion to again see. P.W. 12 further stated that he put his signature twice on two different Test Identification Charts but the carbon copy was only one. In the same paragraph P.W. 12 also stated that the officer who conducted the Test Identification Parade did not put his signature on the Test Identification Chart. In paragraph 29 P.W. 12 stated that in the office where he participated in the Test Identification Parade he did not inform any one about the articles which he identified. In paragraph 30 of his cross-examination P.W. 12 stated that he had no occasion to Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 121 see the articles similar to the articles which he identified in the Test Identification Parade in the market. P.W. 12 further stated in the same paragraph that he had seen the articles identified always with Babloo as he was coming to town and village. P.W. 12 further stated that though he did not live with Babloo always but was meeting him as and when he called him or came to the village and stayed for a day. In paragraph 31 of his cross-examination P.W. 12 stated that he recorded police statement on two occasions after visiting the Investigating Officer. P.W. 12 further stated that second statement was made as in the first statement many important facts could not be stated. P.W. 12 then stated that to identify the articles he went for the second time. In the same paragraph P.W. 12 also clarified that he does not remember the omissions made in his first police statement. In paragraph 32 of his cross-examination P.W. 12 stated that the articles put for Test Identification Parade were kept at a distance of about 1 ft. The articles kept were exactly similar. In the same paragraph P.W. 12 further denied the suggestion that he had not gone for Test Identification Parade and has put his signature over the paper which was written from before. P.W. 12 further denied the suggestion that he has supported the prosecution case because he is related to P.W. 10. P.W. 12 also denied the suggestion that he did not put his signature on the original Test Identification Chart and the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 122 Test Identification Chart is a forged document.
(xiii) P.W. 13 is the second Investigating Officer, who took charge of the investigation of the present case on 24.11.2003 from the first Investigating Officer, P.W. 14. Having taken charge of the investigation perused the case diary in order to know the progress in the investigation of the case. Having perused the case diary, P.W. 13 learnt about the stage of investigation of the case, arrested Awadhesh Thakur and Bhola Singh on 6.2.2004 and seized pen, wrist watch of the victim from Awadhesh Thakur and Bhola Singh respectively vide seizure list dated 6.2.2004, Exts. 1/3, 1/4, also recorded their disclosure statement on the date of arrest of the two. On 7.2.2004 P.W. 13 recorded the statement of Saroj Kumar (P.W.
2) Ram Naresh Shahi (P.W. 5), Raghunath Shahi (not examined), Sandeep Kumar Shahi (P.W. 8) and Mukesh Shahi (P.W. 6). P.W. 13 arrested accused Amod Singh on 1.4.2004 and seized from his custody silver chain with locket of the victim vide seizure list dated 1.4.2004, Ext.1/2. The personal belongings of the victim seized by P.W. 13 were placed for Test Identification Parade in the office of Circle Officers, Kanti, Mushahari. P.W. 13 in the light of the instruction of the superior officer submitted 4th charge-sheet against accused Amod Singh, Bhola Singh and Awadhesh Thakur. In paragraph 4 of his cross-examination P.W. 13 stated that he prepared Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 123 the seizure list at the police station and asked the two persons amongst the crowd collected at the police station to become seizure witness. P.W. 13 also stated that the original seizure list was forwarded by him along with charge-sheet. P.W. 13 has admitted in paragraph 5 of his cross-examination that he did not obtain the signature of the officer who conducted Test Identification Parade on the back page of the Test Identification Chart. In paragraph 6 of his cross-examination P.W. 13 further stated that P.W. 2 in his police statement named Ajit Kumar but not Rajeev Kumar. P.W. 13 also stated that P.W. 2 did not inform him that P.W. 10 began to perspire heavily at the time he was speaking to the abductors on telephone but clarified that P.W. 2 did state before him that in his presence P.W. 10 spoke on telephone. P.W. 13 further stated that P.W. 2 did not state before him that abductors were threatening while making the ransom call. P.W. 13 further stated that P.W. 2 did not inform him that he had occasion to meet Vishwaranjan at Bhagwanpur crossing. P.W. 13, however, confirmed that P.W. 2 did state before him that in his presence it was agreed to pay Rs. 14 lakhs as ransom amount. P.W. 13 having seen paragraph 148 of the case diary stated that the same is in his handwriting and be admitted in evidence as Ext. 7. P.W. 13 further stated that having spoken to the ransom caller he identified the voice as that of Vishwaranjan and that the statement of P.W. 2 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 124 was taken on 7.3.2004. P.W. 2 in his police statement did state before P.W. 13 that P.W. 6 had gone with ransom amount but did not name Vishwaranjan. P.W. 13 also stated that having delivered the ransom amount P.W. 6 and Vishwaranjan did not inform P.W. 2 that victim will be released by 8 P.M. P.W. 2 also did not state before P.W. 13 that Vishwaranjan informed him that a boy named Rajeev abducted the victim. P.W. 2 has also not informed P.W. 13 that Rajeev was residing as a tenant in the house of the victim from 10-15 days before the occurrence. P.W. 13 further stated that he was not informed by P.W. 2 that he came to the house of his mother‟s sister 10-15 days prior to the occurrence. P.W. 2 also did not inform P.W. 13 that victim was talking to a boy who was addressing him as brother. P.W. 2 also did not inform P.W. 13 that victim disclosed about the boy that he is the new tenant Rajeev. In paragraph 8 of his cross-examination P.W. 13 stated that P.W. 5 did not state before him that he can identify the accused persons after they are shown to him. P.W. 13 further stated that he does not remember the direction of the frontage of the house of Awadhesh Thakur. P.W. 13 further stated in the same paragraph that P.W. 5 informed him that no sooner he saw Vishwaranjan in the house of Awadhesh Thakur lights were switched off. In paragraph 9 of his cross-examination P.W. 13 stated that P.W. 8 in his police statement dated 7.3.2004 did not state before him that Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 125 he met Vishwaranjan in the marriage of his brother in law. P.W. 8 also did not state before P.W. 13 that he had asked Vishwaranjan that even after receipt of Rs. 14 lakhs why Babloo has not returned and that Vishwaranjan avoided the question. In paragraph 11 of his cross- examination P.W. 13 stated that he recorded the statement of P.W. 6 on 3.4.2004 but is not aware whether P.W. 6 recorded any earlier statement as he was not the Investigating Officer of the case earlier. P.W. 13, however, confirmed that P.W. 6 did inform him that his mother informed that Vishwaranjan recommended for letting out the house to Rajeev who was in fact Ajit Kumar Mishra. P.W. 6, however, did not sate before P.W. 13 that he learnt from his mother that new tenant Rajeev Kumar Singh had taken Babloo on rickshaw for depositing Rs. 25-30,000/- of one of his relatives with Sahara India. In paragraph 12 of his cross-examination P.W. 13 stated that P.W. 6 did not state before him that Vishwaranjan was regularly coming to his Brahmpura house and persuading him, his father and others to pay the ransom amount but his father was asking for concrete proof. In paragraph 12 of his cross-examination P.W. 13 stated that P.W. 6 did state before him that Vishwaranjan had asked P.W. 6 to accompany, otherwise purpose will be defeated. P.W. 6 also did not inform P.W. 13 that Vishwaranjan was driving the motorcycle and he was sitting as pillion rider. P.W. 6 also did not Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 126 state before P.W. 13 that Vishwaranjan stopped the motorcycle at Fakuli chowk and said that after taking tea they will proceed further. P.W. 6 also did not inform P.W. 13 that after proceeding for some distance Vishwaranjan turned the motorcycle on the canal road. P.W. 13 also stated in the same paragraph that P.W. 6 did not state before him that after covering some distance Vishwaranjan asked P.W. 6 to look back and to confirm whether other motorcycles are following them. P.W. 6 also did not state before him that having overtaken the motorcycle of P.W. 6 the motorcycle proceeded for some distance and stopped and that two persons were riding Yamaha motorcycle. P.W. 6 also did not state before P.W. 13 that he had seen the motorcycle riders at Fakuli chowk. P.W. 13, however, stated that P.W. 6 did state before him that Vishwaranjan had informed him that Yamaha motorcycle riders had apprehended him. P.W. 13 further stated that P.W. 6 did not state before him that another Rajdoot motorcycle also came on which three persons were riding, which stopped behind his motorcycle diagonally. P.W. 13 further stated that P.W. 6 did not state before him that the three riders of Rajdoot motorcycle were seen by him at the tea shop. P.W. 6 also did not state P.W. 13 that motorcycle riders asked Vishwaranjan whether they have come with the ransom amount, thereafter Vishwaranjan replied that they have come with the amount. P.W. 13, however, Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 127 stated that P.W. 6 did state before him that on instruction from Vishwaranjan he took out the bag containing the ransom amount from the dikky of the motorcycle and handed over the bag to the driver of Yamaha motorcycle. P.W. 13 further stated that P.W. 6 did not inform him that the driver of Yamaha motorcycle passed on the bag to his pillion rider. P.W. 6 also did not state before P.W. 13 that Yamaha riders asked P.W. 6 to go ahead and Babloo shall reach home by 8 P.M. P.W. 13 further stated that P.W. 6 did not state before him that he along with Vishwaranjan came back to their house and waited for arrival of his brother for the whole night but his brother did not come. P.W. 6 also did not inform P.W. 13 that after delivery of the ransom amount to the abductors Vishwaranjan never came back to his house. P.W. 13 further stated that P.W. 6 did not show him the place where he had delivered the ransom amount to the abductors. P.W. 13 denied the suggestion that in order to help the prosecution party he has not conducted fair investigation. In paragraph 16 of his cross-examination P.W. 13 confirmed that P.Ws. 2, 5, 6, 8 did not state before him that the dead body of Babloo was recovered from the banana orchard in village Bahilwara at the instance of Nandlal.
(xiv). P.W. 14 Chandeshwar Prasad Yadav has stated in his evidence that on 1.2.2003 he was Officer in charge of Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 128 Brahmpura Police Station and has registered Brahmpura P.S. Case No. 20/03 (Ext. 8) on the basis of the written report of Hari Shahi, Ward Member and took up investigation of the case. P.W. 14 further stated in his evidence that on the same day he recorded the statement of Geeta Shahi (P.W. 9), Nilu Shahi and Satish Kumar Shahi (P.W.
4). Statement of P.W. 10 was recorded on 5.2.2003. He further stated that on 24.02.2003 P.W. 10 produced before him a jacket and a threatening letter for which he not only prepared production cum seizure list under his own signature but also again examined P.W.
10. On the same day statement of Ramakant Shukla @ Munna Shukla (P.W. 1), Randhir Verma, Satish Kumar Shahi @ Sonu (P.W.
4), Baijnath Shahi was also recorded. P.W. 14 recorded the statement of Rama Shankar Shahi, Raghunath Shahi at village Gorigama. After receipt of supervision note of Dy. S.P. accused Arun Pandey, Deepak Shahi were arrested and charge-sheet dated 20.05.2003 was submitted against them keeping the further investigation pending. P.W. 10 also recorded his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as also his further police statement was also recorded. On the same day Krishna Mohan Kumar was also examined by P.W. 14. P.W. 1 and other witnesses were again examined by P.W. 14. P.W. 14 further stated that on 25.06.2003 informant of the case was made accused and arrested. Later charge-sheet was submitted against Hari Shahi Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 129 keeping the investigation pending. P.W. 14 also arrested Vishwaranjan. Ajit Kumar Mishra came to the police station on 22.09.2003 and was not only arrested but also made disclosure statement. In the light of the disclosure statement attempt was made by P.W. 14 to recover the dead body but in the process P.W. 14 at the instance of Ajit Kumar Mishra could seize a vehicle bearing Registration No. DBG-8799 in presence of two independent witnesses Ram Sarup Sah and Ram Kishore Sah. Police remand of both Vishwaranjan and Ajit Kumar Mishra was obtained on 22.09.2003. In the light of their disclosure statement P.W. 14 recovered one socks and leather purse from a pit in the banana orchard of Mithu Singh in village Bahilwara situate adjacent to the orchard of Vishwaranjan. The recovered socks was smeared with soil. Police remand of Nandlal Sah was obtained on 28.10.2003 and as per disclosure statement made by him P.W. 14 went to village Bahilwara and from the banana orchard of Mithu Singh exhumed a dead body. Inquest whereof was also prepared by P.W. 14, together with the dead body one socks, sports shoe, full-pant was also recovered. P.W. 14 further stated that the dead body was identified by the witnesses, which fact according to P.W. 14 has also been mentioned in the inquest report. P.W. 14 further stated that articles recovered were put for identification in the office of Circle Officer, Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 130 Kanti and he received Test Identification Chart. Statement of witnesses who put their signature over the inquest report of the deceased was also recorded. In paragraph 8 of his cross-examination P.W. 14 stated that he exhumed the skeleton which has no flesh. P.W. 14 then volunteered that there was hair on the head. P.W. 14, however, refuted the suggestion that he has deposed at the instance of the informant. In paragraph 9 of his cross-examination P.W. 14 has stated that he recorded the statement of P.W. 1 only on two occasions i.e. 24.06.2003 and 24.02.2003. He further stated that his statement was not taken on any other occasion. First statement dated 24.02.2003 was taken at the police station. The second statement dated 24.06.2003 was recorded at the residence of P.W. 10. P.W. 14 also stated that P.W. 1 has informed him that one week prior to the occurrence he has gone to his village home Baswaria. According to P.W. 14, P.W. 1 has further stated in his police statement that after he learnt about the occurrence he came to Muzaffarpur and then launched hectic search. P.W. 14 categorically stated that P.W. 1 has not stated before him that at the time of occurrence he was at Muzaffarpur. P.W. 1 has also not stated before him that it was Vishwaranjan who identified Rajeev @ Vishwajeet and stated that he (Rajeev) is a good man, tenancy may be given to him. P.W. 14 further stated that P.W. 1 has not stated before him that after the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 131 occurrence Vishwaranjan was regularly coming to the house of the victim and meeting his father. P.W. 14 further stated that P.W. 1 had stated before him that it was Babloo who inducted Rajeev Kumar Singh as a tenant in his house. P.W. 14 further stated that P.W. 1 had not stated before him that he had seen Babloo going for the last time bearing a jacket. P.W. 14 further stated that P.W. 1 never informed him that Vishwaranjan ever asked P.W. 10 in his presence to make payment of ransom amount of Rs. 14 lakhs to the abductors. P.W. 14 also stated that P.W. 1 did not inform him that Vishwaranjan asked P.W. 10 that for payment of ransom amount he will not go along with Satish @ Sonu (P.W. 4) and that Mukesh (P.W. 6) should accompany him. P.W. 14 also stated that P.W. 1 did not state before him that having paid the ransom amount Vishwaranjan informed P.W. 10 that Babloo shall come by 8 P.M. P.W. 14 further stated that P.W. 1 had not deposed before him that the dead body and the personal belongings of the deceased was recovered in his presence. In paragraph 10 of his cross-examination P.W. 14 stated that Satish (P.W. 4) did not state before him that he was present in the house of victim when Rajeev had come to obtain tenancy. P.W. 4 also did not state before him that Vishwaranjan was present in the house of the victim 20-25 minutes prior to the arrival of Rajeev. P.W. 4 also not stated before P.W. 14 that Vishwaranjan came out and recommended Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 132 in favour of Rajeev saying that he was earlier tenant in the house of Hari uncle. P.W. 14 further stated that P.W. 4 has also not stated before him that victim let out the house to Rajeev on the recommendation of Vishwaranjan. P.W. 14 also stated that P.W. 4 had stated before him that it was victim who brought Rajeev 25-30 days prior to the occurrence and let out two rooms of the house which had tiled roof. P.W. 4 has also not stated before P.W. 14 that Rajeev was living as a tenant in the house 15 days prior to the occurrence. P.W. 4 has also not stated that after arrival of his uncle from Calcutta ransom call began coming and Vishwaranjan was asking his uncle (P.W. 10) to make payment, otherwise his son will be killed. P.W. 4, however, informed P.W. 14 that he had seen the articles kept in the polythene packet in his cattle shed, whereafter he called his father, uncle and neighbours and they gave him instruction to open the packet. P.W. 14 further stated in the same paragraph that P.W. 4 has not stated before him that wife, mother of Babloo Shahi identified the jacket. P.W. 4 has also not stated before P.W. 14 that his uncle stated that on availability of proof he shall make payment. P.W. 14 further stated that P.W. 4 has not stated before him that Vishwaranjan ever stated that abductors have made him meet Babloo. P.W. 14 also stated that P.W. 4 did not state before him that after about two months of the occurrence Vishwaranjan came to his Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 133 uncle (P.W. 10) between 10-10.30 A.M. and claimed that he has seen Babloo. P.W. 14 also stated that P.W. 4 did not state before him that his uncle having heard the aforesaid statement from Vishwaranjan had agreed to pay the ransom amount. P.W. 14 also stated that P.W. 4 has not stated before him that Vishwaranjan was apprehended at Bibiganj railway crossing in a Marshal vehicle, taken to Chapra and after ensuring his meeting with Babloo was dropped at Chapra railway station. P.W. 14 also stated that P.W. 4 did not state before him that 2-3 days thereafter he, Mukesh and Vishwaranjan having taken ransom amount came down from the house of P.W. 10 then Vishwaranjan asked P.W. 4 not to come along with him, instead Mukesh should accompany him. P.W. 14 further stated that P.W. 4 has also not stated that Vishwaranjan and Mukesh went to deliver the ransom amount to the abductors on motorcycle. P.W. 14 further stated that P.W. 4 has not stated before him that Vishwaranjan informed P.W. 10 that Babloo shall come back by 8 P.M. P.W. 14 also stated that P.W. 4 has not stated before him that Vishwaranjan was arrested after 7-8 months then he disclosed the correct name of Rajeev as Ajit Kumar Mishra, son of Amod Mishra. He further stated that P.W. 4 also did not state before him that after 7-8 months of the occurrence behind the house of Vishwaranjan from a mango orchard gents purse and socks was dug out. P.W. 14 stated that P.W. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 134 4 also did not state before him that there was an identity card of Babloo in the purse. P.W. 4 has also not stated before him that thereafter dead body of Babloo was dug out from adjacent land. P.W. 4 also did not state before P.W. 14 that shoe, socks, full-pant of Babloo was recovered from the same place from where his dead body was exhumed. In paragraph 12 of his cross-examination P.W. 14 admitted that P.W. 9 Geeta Devi has not stated before him that it is the same jacket which her son had worn on the date of occurrence. P.W. 9 has also not stated before P.W. 14 that the date on which Rajeev had come to seek tenancy in her house Vishwaranjan had come to her house half an hour before and was present at the time of arrival of Rajeev. P.W. 9 has also not stated before P.W. 14 that Rajeev knocked the grill, whereafter Babloo asked Vishwaranjan to see as to who has come. P.W. 9 has also not stated before P.W. 14 that Vishwaranjan stated that Rajeev is resident of Bhagwanpur and his other relatives are also residing there, he (Vishwaranjan) knows all of them and there is nothing to enquire about him. P.W. 9 has also not stated before P.W. 14 that on the recommendation of Vishwaranjan portion of the house was let out to Rajeev. P.W. 9 has also not stated before P.W. 14 that her son while going along with Rajeev in the evening had put on black leather jacket, muffler, full T- shirt, shoe, socks since it was winter. In paragraph 13 of his cross- Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 135 examination P.W. 14 stated that P.W. 9 has not stated before him that even after recovery of the jacket Vishwaranjan was regularly coming to her house and asking her husband to pay the ransom amount to the abductors. P.W. 9 has also not stated before P.W. 14 that Vishwaranjan was asking her for making payment to the abductors. P.W. 9 also did not state before P.W. 14 that Vishwaranjan was telling her that abductors may have been harassing her son by folding his mouth, hand as also by inflicting burn injury with a lighted cigarette. P.W. 14 further stated that P.W. 9 did not state before him that Vishwaranjan was asking her husband to make payment of the ransom amount and to secure release of his son. P.W. 9 also did not state before P.W. 14 that her husband was asking for production of evidence to indicate that his son is alive to enable him to make payment. P.W. 9 also did not state before P.W. 14 that one day Vishwaranjan called from Chapra and asked her husband Shahiji that abductors apphehended him from Bibiganj- Muzaffarpur. P.W. 9 also did not state before P.W. 14 that aforesaid call was picked up by her and at the request of Vishwaranjan receiver was handed over to her husband. P.W. 9 also did not state before P.W. 14 that Vishwaranjan made telephone call from Chapra at about 5 A.M. and thereafter on the same day came to her residence at about 11 A.M. P.W. 14 further stated that P.W. 9 did not state Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 136 before him that Vishwaranjan having come to her house claimed that he met, seen Babloo but was not allowed to speak. P.W. 14 also stated that P.W. 9 did not state before him that her husband did not believe the aforesaid statement of Vishwaranjan and asked Vishwaranjan whether the person whom he has seen was really Babloo. P.W. 14 further stated that P.W. 9 has not stated before him that Vishwaranjan turned south and then stated that he recognizes Babloo and why should he speak lie. P.W. 14 further stated that P.W. 9 has not stated before him that Vishwaranjan wanted to speak to Babloo but he was not allowed to do so. P.W. 14 further stated that P.W 9 did not state before him that Vishwaranjan had spoken before her that abductors had asked him that Shahiji wanted proof which has now been provided and he be asked to make payment. P.W. 9 has also not stated before P.W. 14 that Vishwaranjan has stated that abductors have given 4-5 days time for payment. P.W. 9 also did not state before P.W. 14 that her husband arranged Rs. 14 lakhs. P.W. 14 further stated that P.W. 9 did not state before him that for delivery of ransom amount initially Sonu and Vishwaranjan became ready but thereafter Vishwaranjan stated that if he goes with Sonu for payment the work may be spoilt and he should be accompanied by Mukesh. P.W. 14 also stated that P.W. 9 has not informed him that Mukesh and Vishwaranjan went on a motorcycle to deliver the ransom Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 137 amount of Rs. 14 lakhs to the abductors. P.W. 9 also did not state before P.W. 14 that having made payment to the abductors the two returned by 3 P.M. and informed that ransom amount has been paid to those who apprehended him and Babloo shall return by 8 P.M. P.W. 14 also stated that P.W. 9 did not inform him that after payment to the abductors Vishwaranjan never came to her house. P.W. 14 further stated that P.W. 9 did not state before him that dead body of her son was recovered after nine months, which she identified. In paragraph 16 of his cross-examination P.W. 14 stated that he examined Shiv Shankar Shahi (P.W. 10) on 5.2.2003, 24.02.2003 and 24.06.2003 and not thereafter. He also stated that P.W. 10 recorded his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. also on 24.06.2003. In paragraph 18 P.W. 14 admitted that P.W. 10 has not stated anything about Vishwaranjan until he recorded his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. In paragraph 19 of his cross-examination P.W. 14 stated that P.W. 10 has not stated before him that his wife informed him that on 17.01.2003 a person had come to take the house on rent and the person had spoken to Babloo and half an hour prior to his arrival Vishwaranjan had come. P.W. 14 further stated that P.W. 10 did not state before him that he was informed by his wife that the visitor was allowed tenancy on the recommendation of Vishwaranjan and Rajeev having obtained tenancy became familiar Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 138 with Babloo. P.W. 14 further stated that P.W. 10 did not state before him that he was informed by his wife that Rajeev had come at 5 P.M. with rickshaw, informed her that his relative who resides in Bhagwanpur has to deposit Rs. 20-25,000/- with Sahara India and he is to leave for outside tomorrow morning, as such, it would be appropriate to take the cash and complete the documentation now, which would be in the interest of both of us. P.W. 10 also did not state before P.W. 14 that Babloo having been duped by Rajeev went along with him. P.W. 14 further stated that P.W. 10 did not state before him that he was informed by his wife that Rajeev came on a rickshaw on which Babloo went along with Rajeev saying that they shall return within half an hour. P.W. 10 also did not state before P.W. 14 that he learnt from his wife that when Rajeev and Babloo did not return even after fall of night, there was commotion in the family and sadness prevailed all over. In paragraph 20 of his cross- examination P.W. 14 stated that P.W. 10 also did not state before him that he learnt from his wife that other members of the family, neighbours and tenants went towards Bhagwanpur and other places for searching the two. P.W. 14 has further stated that P.W. 10 did not state before him that he learnt from his wife that telephone calls were made by his wife, daughter in law on telephone numbers, which were written in the index of the diary but none could provide Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 139 information about the whereabouts of the two. P.W. 14 has further stated that P.W. 10 did not state before him that his wife informed him that the neighbours came to his house in the morning and made enquiries about Babloo. P.W. 14 has further stated that P.W. 10 did not state before him that he learnt from his wife that Vishwaranjan had come to his house after the induction of the new tenant and 5 days prior to the occurrence along with another person, stayed in the house, took tea and thereafter went away stating that he is going to purchase clothes. P.W. 14 has further stated that P.W. 10 did not state before him that he learnt from his wife that one day prior to the occurrence Vishwaranjan came to his house and asked his wife about the time of his return from Calcutta. P.W. 10 has also not stated that his wife informed Vishwaranjan that P.W. 10 is seriously ill in Calcutta and she and other members of the family are going to Calcutta within 4-5 days. P.W. 14 has further stated that P.W. 10 did not state before him that his wife informed him that Vishwaranjan having come down, went along with the same person who had come to her house 5 days earlier along with him on a motorcycle. P.W. 14 in paragraph 20 itself has admitted that P.W. 10 has stated before him that next day of the occurrence 2-3 calls were received and the caller claimed that Babloo is in his custody and heavy amount should be arranged for safe release of Babloo. P.W. 14 has further stated Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 140 that P.W. 10 did not state before him that Vishwaranjan was asking him, his wife to respond to the calls received from the abductors and arrange money for securing his release, failing which the work will be spoilt. P.W. 14 has further stated that P.W. 10 did not state before him that he told Vishwaranjan that he shall not make payment of ransom amount unless he is shown evidence about existence of Babloo. In paragraph 21 of his cross examination P.W. 14 has stated that P.W. 10 did not inform him that Vishwaranjan was regularly coming to his house and was asking him that as evidence has been made available he (P.W. 10) should make payment failing which his son will be killed. P.W. 14 has further stated that P.W. 10 did not state before him that Vishwaranjan has spoken before P.W. 10, his wife, son and others that abductors allowed him to meet Babloo and told him that he (P.W. 10) should now be convinced about Babloo being alive and make payment of the ransom amount of Rs. 14 lakhs by arranging the same at the earliest. In paragraph 22 of his cross- examination P.W. 14 stated that P.W. 10 did not inform him that he paid the ransom amount of Rs. 14 lakhs but clarified that P.W. 10 did state before him about payment of heavy amount. In the same paragraph P.W. 14 has stated that P.W. 10 did not state before him that he having given the ransom amount to Vishwaranjan came down along with him, his son, nephew and asked his nephew Satish @ Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 141 Sonu to accompany Vishwaranjan on motorcycle for payment of ransom amount but Vishwaranjan refused to go along with him and stated that if he goes along with Sonu there may be danger and suggested that Mukesh (P.W. 6) should accompany him. P.W. 14 has further stated that P.W. 10 did not state before him that both Mukesh and Vishwaranjan had gone on Yamaha motorcycle for payment of ransom amount after keeping the money in the dikky of the motorcycle. P.W. 14 has further stated that P.W. 10 did not state before him that those who had gone to make payment of the ransom amount returned by 3-4 P.M. and Vishwaranjan informed him that the ransom amount of Rs. 14 lakhs was paid to the same person who had shown him Babloo and there is nothing to fear and that Babloo shall return by 8-8.30 P.M. P.W. 14 has further stated that P.W. 10 did not state before him that Vishwaranjan stayed in his house for the night and while leaving in the morning stated that he shall find out the reason as to why Babloo did not come back. P.W. 14 has further stated that P.W. 10 did state before him that Vishwaranjan was not coming to him in spite of information being given to him. In paragraph 25 of his cross-examination P.W. 14 has stated that P.W. 10 did not state before him that house was let out to Rajeev on Vishwaranjan becoming his guarantor. In the same paragraph P.W. 14 has stated that P.W. 10 has not stated before him that money was Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 142 taken by Vishwaranjan in the end of April, 2003. In paragraph 26 P.W. 14 stated that Vishwaranjan was arrested on 14.09.2003 and produced in Court on 18.09.2003 but denied the suggestion that he was assaulted by him and other police offices and that Chief Judicial Magistrate asked him to provide treatment to Vishwaranjan. P.W. 14 also stated that he was served with show cause notice to explain the delay in production of Vishwaranjan in Court but declined the suggestion that he was assaulted between 14-18th September, 2003 and obtained signature from him on blank paper. He also declined the suggestion that he has not prepared the seizure list of the articles seized and that the documents prepared in connection with the case are with a view to support the prosecution case in collusion with P.W. 10.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants assailed the conviction of the appellants on the ground that there is hardly any reliable evidence, on the basis of which, they can be connected with the abduction and killing of the victim Raj Kumar Shahi @ Babloo. It is submitted that they are neither named in the First Information Report nor seen with the deceased any time prior to recovery of his dead body on 29.10.2003. Even if it is assumed that the skeleton, which was recovered on 29.10.2003, was of Raj Kumar Shahi @ Babloo, the circumstances from which the inference of guilt is drawn Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 143 against the appellant have not fully established the complicity of the appellants in the crime by unimpeachable evidence beyond the shadow of doubt. It is also submitted that the circumstances implicating the appellants in the crime are not of determinative tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the appellants. It is also submitted that the circumstances taken collectively are incapable of explanation of any reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt sought to be proved against the appellants.
9. It is further submitted that after abduction of the victim on 31.01.2003 telephonic information about the occurrence was given by the mother of the victim (P.W. 9) to her husband (P.W.
10) and her son (P.W. 6) at Calcutta and both came to Muzaffarpur on 5.2.2003. P.W. 10 thereafter recorded his statement before the first I.O. (P.W. 14) on 5.2.2003 but did not make any statement to the first I.O. that he learnt about the disappearance of the victim along with new tenant on 31.01.2003 at 5 P.M. telephonically from his wife (P.W. 9). Mukesh Kumar Shahi (P.W. 6) did not even record his statement on 5.2.2003 about the occurrence.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that according to P.W. 4 the black jacket, which the victim had worn on the date of his disappearance, was recovered in a polythene packet along with a threatening letter from the roof of the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 144 cattle shed in his village home at Gorigama was brought to Muzaffarpur by P.W. 4 together with his father and uncle after the jacket was identified by the mother (P.W. 9) and wife of the victim (not examined), the jacket and the letter was produced before P.W. 14 but the factum of the jacket having been identified by the mother of the victim (P.W. 9), his wife (not examined) and others including the tenant P.W. 1 etc. has not been stated by P.W. 4 in his police statement. It is further submitted that neither father nor uncle of P.W. 4 having been examined to support the recovery of the jacket and the threatening letter from the roof of the cattle shed and then said to have been brought to Muzaffarpur house of the victim for identification by P.W. 9 and wife of the victim, according to learned counsel for the appellants failure to examine the aforesaid witnesses, namely, father and uncle of P.W. 4, story about recovery of jacket and the threatening letter having been identified by P.W. 9 and her daughter in law appears to be doubtful.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that before and after 24.02.2003 several ransom calls came to the house of P.W. 10 which was picked up by him, his wife and son and on one occasion by P.W. 2 when he happened to visit his house. In the light of the ransom calls Vishwaranjan was always persuading P.W. 10, his wife and son to make payment of ransom Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 145 amount and secure release of the victim, who according to Vishwaranjan must have been suffering torture at the hands of the abductors. P.W. 10, however, according to the prosecution case, was insisting to make available reliable evidence to establish the factum of Babloo being alive and in captivity of the abductors. It is further prosecution case that Vishwaranjan, in order to establish captivity of Babloo with the abductors, is said to have called P.W. 10 at 5 A.M. asserting that while he (Vishwaranjan) was returning from his house ( the house of P.W. 10) in the previous night he (Vishwaranjan) was apprehended near Bibiganj railway crossing, brought to Chapra and made to see Babloo and then left at Chapra railway station. On the same day Vishwaranjan came to the house of P.W. 10 and informed him that abductors while permitting him to see Babloo asked him that Shahiji (P.W. 10) wanted proof which has now been offered and he should arrange money for making payment of ransom amount. In the light of the claim of Vishwaranjan P.W. 10 agreed to make payment of ransom amount of Rs. 14 lakhs to the abductors and having arranged the ransom amount P.W. 10 asked Vishwaranjan and P.W. 4 to go and make payment of ransom amount to the abductors, Vishwaranjan, however, stated that if he goes along with P.W. 4 then the work will be spoilt and went along with P.W. 6 on Yamaha motorcycle to make payment. Having made payment of Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 146 ransom amount to the five abductors, Vishwaranjan returned along with P.W. 6 and informed P.W. 10 that ransom amount has been paid to those who apprehended him near Bibiganj railway crossing, took him to Chapra and made him see Babloo and that Babloo shall return by 8 P.M. Babloo, however, did not return and Vishwaranjan stayed in the house of P.W. 10 during the night and left in the morning saying that he shall find out the reason as to why Babloo has not returned, thereafter Vishwaranjan never came to the house of P.W.
10. It is submitted that aforesaid story about receipt of ransom call, claimed apprehension of Vishwaranjan by the abductors in which he was made to see Babloo, payment of ransom amount to the abductors, though asserted in Court, was not stated by any of the witnesses in their police statement recorded by first I.O. (P.W. 14).
12. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that P.W. 6 asserted for the first time in his evidence in Court that when he proceeded with Vishwaranjan on a motorcycle to make payment of ransom amount they first came to Fakuli Chowk near tea, betel shop where 7-8 persons were present from before with 2-3 motorcycles. He also stated for the first time in Court that when he and Vishwaranjan proceeded on the canal road five persons on two motorcycles, one Yamaha and other Rajdoot, followed them, after covering some distance overtook their motorcycle, after Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 147 covering some more distance both the motorcycle stopped. Vishwaranjan also stopped their motorcycle. On instruction from Vishwaranjan P.W. 6 handed over the bag containing ransom amount to the driver of Yamaha motorcycle, who handed over the same to his pillion rider. Having taken the ransom amount the two riding Yamaha motorcycle stated that victim shall return on the same day by 8 P.M. P.W. 6 claimed in Court that he identified the five persons, two riding the Yamaha motorcycle as Amod Singh driver and Bhola Singh the pillion rider of Yamaha motorcycle. Rajdoot motorcycle was being driven by Ajit Kumar Mishra, Awadhesh Thakur and Nandlal Sah @ Nandwa were the pillion riders. Such claim was not made by the prosecution witnesses during investigation of the case by first I.O. until he conducted investigation. Evidence of P.Ws. 2, 5, 6 and 8 has been challenged on the ground that they recorded their police statement before the second I.O. on 7.2.2004 and not earlier, which is evident from the evidence of second I.O. Ashok Kumar Pandey (P.W. 13) and there does not appear to be any explanation for their failure to record statement before the first I.O. (P.W. 14).
13. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that perusal of the protest petition dated 17.05.2003, Complaint Petition dated 19.05.2003, both filed by P.W. 10 and Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 148 statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded by P.W. 10 on 24.06.2003, Exts. C, B and D is indicative of the fact that P.W. 10 had no suspicion against Vishwaranjan until 24.06.2003 though from the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 10 it is quite evident that ransom amount was paid through Vishwaranjan either on 4th or on 5th of April, 2003, yet the prosecution did not think it appropriate to raise any suspicion against appellant Vishwaranjan till 24.06.2013. In this connection learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that appellant Vishwaranjan was being pressurized to become witness against Arun Kumar Pandey and Deepak Kumar Shahi against whom the first charge-sheet was submitted. It is submitted that he was also asked to become witness against Hari Shahi but on his failure to become witness against the three, was not only assaulted but also roped in the present case and arrested on 14.09.2003 but produced in Court on 18.09.2003. It is submitted that during the period between 14.09.2003-18.09.2003 Vishwaranjan was also subjected to third degree treatment by the police. His injury report dated 17.09.2003 (Ext. H) and entries made in jail register (Exts. L to L/9) is indicative of the aforesaid fact.
14. Learned counsel for the appellants further assailed the recovery of only one socks, purse on 30.09.2003 in the light of the evidence of P.Ws. 4, 6, 8, 10, 11 and submitted that the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 149 aforesaid recovery was never made on the basis of the disclosure statement of Vishwaranjan as P.W. 10 has categorically admitted in paragraph 75 of his evidence that Vishwaranjan did not make any confessional statement before the police in his presence. P.W. 10 also denied the suggestion in paragraph 76 of his evidence that Vishwaranjan ever made any disclosure regarding the real name of the tenant Rajeev Kumar Singh as Ajit Kumar Mishra. P.W. 14 also stated in his evidence that Vishwaranjan never made any disclosure statement on the basis of which recoveries were made. Learned counsel also questioned the evidence of P.Ws. 4, 6, 8, 11 about recovery of socks, purse of the deceased on the ground that they made such statement for the first time in Court that after eight months articles like purse, socks of the deceased were recovered in banana orchard but second I.O. (P.W. 13) denied that P.Ws. 4, 6, 8, 11 ever made any such statement before him. Learned counsel also questioned the recoveries on the ground that though recoveries were made in the orchard but the seizure memo was prepared at the police station after several hours.
15. The further prosecution case that on disclosure of appellant Nandlal Sah @ Nandwa further digging was made near banana orchard of Mithu Singh and the dead body of the deceased together with his belongings, namely, another socks, one shoe, pant Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 150 was recovered, has also not been established as P.W. 10 has admitted in paragraph 81 of his evidence that Nandlal never made such statement in his presence. He further added that in fact the police informed him about recovery of the dead body. P.W. 10 also stated that neither the dead body nor the belongings of the deceased were recovered in his presence. Learned counsel also submitted that P.W. 6 and other witnesses asserted for the first time in Court that after one month of the first digging when police went with Nandlal dead body of the deceased was recovered from another place but P.Ws. 14, 13 never stated so that witnesses in their statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have stated about recovery of the dead body. It is submitted that P.W. 14 candidly admitted in his evidence that whatever recovered was a mere skeleton. It is submitted that even doctor (P.W. 7) who conducted post mortem stated that decomposition of the body was in advance stage and the muscles were dried and atrophied. P.W. 7 further admitted that the name, age and identity of the body was given on the basis of the inquest and challan sent with the body and that the body was not identifiable.
16. It is further pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants that after the prosecution failed in making out a case of circumstantial evidence attempted to make certain recoveries of personal belongings of the deceased, namely, locket, wrist watch Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 151 and pen from the appellants. The pen is said to have been recovered from the appellant Awadhesh Thakur who was arrested on 6.2.2004. The charge-sheet against Awadhesh Thakur and two others, namely, Bhola Singh and Amod Singh was submitted on 4.5.2004 i.e. six months after submission of third charge-sheet on 20.11.2003 against Shailendra Singh @ Shailendra Rai (acquitted) and appellants Vishwaranjan Singh, Naldlal Sah @ Nandwa and Ajit Kumar Mishra. It is also submitted that amongst the witnesses included in the 3rd and 4th charge-sheet only P.Ws. 10, 9 and 5 have been examined without giving any explanation for non-examination of other witnesses Ish Rai, Bharat Sah, Raghunath Shahi (brother of P.W. 10), Sanjay and others. According to learned counsel non- examination of Rama Shankar Shahi and Baijnath Shahi other brothers of P.W. 10 and Randhir Verma, co-tenant assumes great significance.
17. Learned counsel for the appellants also challenged the evidence of Ram Naresh Shahi (P.W. 5) who also recorded his statement on 7.2.2004 on the ground that the evidence recorded by P.W. 5 in Court was not stated by him in his police statement and is fit to be ignored.
18. Counsel for the father of the victim with reference to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses submitted that there is Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 152 definite evidence indicating departure of the deceased with his tenant Rajeev Kumar Singh, who was later identified as Ajit Kumar Mishra and at his instance dead body of the victim was recovered on 29.10.2003, which was identified by means of his denture. He further submitted that there is also evidence to indicate that the ransom amount was paid at the instance of appellant Vishwaranjan and that purse, Identity Card and one of the socks of the victim was recovered on 30.09.2003.
19. Learned counsel further submitted that Ramakant Shukla @ Munna Shukla (P.W. 1), Krishna Mohan Kumar (P.W.3) the two tenants, Satish Kumar Shahi @ Sonu (P.W. 4) cousin of the deceased, Geeta Devi (P.W. 9) mother of the deceased have seen the victim Babloo going along with new tenant Rajeev on 31.01.2003 at about 5 P.M. to deposit the amount of one of the relatives of Rajeev with Sahara India and while going the two had stated that they would return within half an hour but they never came back. P.Ws. 1, 6, 9 and 10 i.e. tenant, brother, mother and father of the deceased have deposed about the receipt of the ransom call and identification of the jacket of the deceased and the manner in which Vishwaranjan was persuading them to make payment to the abductors and to deliver the bag containing the ransom amount to the abductors to secure release of the victim by 8 P.M. on the date of delivery. P.Ws. 1, 4, 8, 9, 10, Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 153 11 and 14 have deposed about the identification of the dead body and the personal belongings of he deceased. It is submitted with reference to the aforesaid evidence that prosecution has been able to bring home the charge against the appellants.
20. From the prosecution case, as unfolded during trial, it appears that victim Raj Kumar Shahi @ Babloo let out portion of his house with tiled roof situate in Sanjay Cinema Road, P.S. Brahmpura, Muzaffarpur on the recommendation of appellant Vishwaranjan Singh to Rajeev Kumar Singh, son of Kaushlendra Prasad Singh of Rampur, Sitamarhi on 17.01.2003 as it is said that Vishwaranjan Singh had come to the house of Raj Kumar Shahi @ Babloo half an hour before Rajiv Kumar Singh approached Raj Kumar Shahi for obtaining tenancy. Vishwaranjan stated that he is known to Rajeev, all his relatives are residing at Bhagwanpur and that he has earlier been tenant in the house of Hari uncle. Rajeev was later identified as appellant Ajit Kumar Mishra. Having acquired tenancy Rajiv Kumar Singh @ Ajit Kumar Mishra became intimate, familiar with Raj Kumar Shahi @ Babloo. On 31.01.2003 at about 5 P.M. Rajeev Kumar Singh requested Raj Kumar Shahi @ Babloo to come along with him to Bhagwanpur on a rickshaw to deposit a sum of Rs. 25-30,000/- of one of his relatives with Sahara India as the relative was to go outside Muzaffarpur next morning. While leaving Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 154 to make deposit both stated that they would return within half an hour but did not return. Family members searched both in Bhagwanpur as also made telephone call to the relatives and others. Next morning mother of Raj Kumar Shahi Gita Devi (P.W. 9) called her cousin brother in law i.e. appellant Hari Shahi and informed him about the occurrence, who submitted written report dated 1.2.2003 (Ext. 5) on the basis of which present First Information Report was registered on 1.2.2003. Gita Devi also telephonically informed her husband Shiv Shankar Shahi (P.W. 10) and son Mukesh Kumar Shahi (P.W. 6) about the occurrence at Calcutta as both were at Calcutta in connection with their electrical goods supply business. Father, brother of Raj Kumar Shahi @ Babloo having learnt about the occurrence at Calcutta came to Muzaffarpur on 5.2.2003. After arrival of P.Ws. 10, 6 at Muzaffarpur, ransom call claiming custody of Raj Kumar Shahi with direction to arrange heavy amount for securing his release began coming. In the light of the ransom call appellant Vishwaranjan Singh is said to have persuaded P.Ws. 10, 9 and 6 to arrange the ransom amount for payment and securing release of the victim, who according to Vishwaranjan must have been extensively tortured by the abductors. P.W. 10, however, insisted for proof to satisfy himself about the fact that Raj Kumar shahi was alive in the captivity of abductors. It is further said that on 24.02.2003 first Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 155 cousin of Raj Kumar Shahi i.e. Satish Kumar Shahi @ Sonu (P.W. 4) noticed a polythene bag with liquor bottle mark on the roof of his cattle shed situate in his ancestral village Gorigama. Having noticed the bag P.W. 4 called his father Raghunath Shahi, uncle Rama Shankar Shahi (both not examined), other neighbours and on their instruction opened the bag. Having found in the bag a black jacket, which according to P.W. 4, Raj Kumar Shahi had worn on the date of his disappearance together with a threatening letter P.W. 4 came to Muzaffarpur with the jacket and the threatening letter where the jacket was identified by P.Ws. 9, 10, 6 and the wife of the victim. Both the jacket and the threatening letter was thereafter taken to the police station by P.W. 10 and others, handed over to the Investigating Officer who seized both the jacket and the threatening letter vide seizure list dated 24.02.2003 (Ext. 1). Ransom call continued coming even after 24.02.2003. In the light of the ransom call(s) Vishwaranjan continued to persuade P.Ws. 9, 10 and other family members of the victim to make payment of the ransom amount. One such ransom call was received by P.W. 9 in the morning at about 5 A.M. The caller identified himself as Vishwaranjan speaking from Chapra and requested P.W. 9 to hand over the receiver to her husband P.W. 10. Caller thereafter informed P.W. 10 that yesterday night while he was returning to his house was Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 156 apprehended by the abductors near Bibiganj railway crossing, brought to Chapra, made to see the victim Babloo and then dropped at Chapra railway station. On the same day after about 4-5 hours Vishwaranjan came to the house of P.W. 10 and informed him in presence of P.Ws. 9, 6 and others that he met Babloo at the instance of those who apprehended him yesterday evening while he was returning from his house (house of P.W. 10) and stated that Babloo is alive and ransom amount of Rs. 14 lakhs should be arranged and paid to the abductors at the earliest. It is further evident from the prosecution evidence that ransom amount of Rs. 14 lakhs was arranged by P.W. 10 and handed over to Vishwaranjan on 4.4.2003 for payment to the abductors with further instruction to Vishwaranjan that he should go along with P.W. 4 to deliver the amount to the abductors. Vishwaranjan, however, declined to go along with P.W. 4 and asked P.W. 6 to accompany him. Both Vishwaranjan and P.W. 6 proceeded on Yamaha motorcycle to deliver the ransom amount to the abductors. They first came to Fakuli chowk and saw 7-8 persons waiting in front of a tea, betel shop with two motorcycles, one Yamaha and the other Rajdoot. Vishwaranjan and P.W. 6 having taken tea, betel at Fakuli chowk returned back on their motorcycle and turned on the canal road. Five amongst the 7-8 persons waiting at Fakuli chowk from before also followed Vishwaranjan and P.W. 6 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 157 on the two motorcycles. Yamaha, Rajdoot motorcycle had 2, 3 riders respectively. Two persons riding Yamaha motorcycle overtook the motorcycle of Vishwaranjan and P.W. 6. The Yamaha motorcycle which overtook the motorcycle of Vishwaranjan stopped after proceeding for some distance. Vishwaranjan also stopped his motorcycle, meanwhile, Rajdoot motorcycle which was following the two Yamaha motorcycles also came and stopped diagonally behind the motorcycle of Vishwaranjan. P.W. 6 on instruction from Vishwaranjan handed over the bag containing the ransom amount to the driver of Yamaha motorcycle, who handed over the same to his pillion rider and informed Vishwaranjan, P.W. 6 that Babloo shall reach home in the same evening by 8 P.M. Having delivered the ransom amount to the abductors Vishwaranjan and P.W. 6 returned back on their Yamaha motorcycle to the house of P.W. 10 and informed P.W. 10 that the bag containing the ransom amount has been handed over to those who apprehended him earlier at Bibiganj railway crossing, took him to Chapra and made him meet Babloo and that Babloo shall return in the same evening by 8 P.M. During night Vishwaranjan also stayed in the house of P.W. 10, left in the morning saying that he shall enquire about the reason as to why did Babloo not return. Proseuciton witnesses have further asserted that after payment of ransom amount to the abdutors Vishwaranjan, in spite of Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 158 being called, never came to the house of P.W. 10, though earlier after arrival of P.W. 10 from Calcutta on 5.2.2003 he was regularly coming to the house of P.W. 10, remained in his constant contact, persuading him, P.Ws. 9, 6 to make payment of ransom amount to secure release of Babloo. The evidence of P.Ws. 6, 10 led in support of the prosecution case in Court that Vishwaranjan went along with P.W. 6 on Yamaha motorcycle on 4.4.2003 to deliver the ransom amount of Rs. 14 lakhs in a cotton bag to the abductors and instructed P.W. 6 to hand over the cotton bag to Amod Singh, the driver of Yamaha motorcycle who passed on the bag to Bhola Singh his pillion rider in presence of Ajit Kumar Mishra the driver of Rajdoot motorcycle and his two pillion riders Dr. Awadhesh Thakur and Nandlal Sah @ Nandwa, the further evidence that the five abdutors having taken the cotton bag assured Vishwaranjan and P.W. 6 that victim will return in the same evening by 8 P.M., is not worthy of acceptance as P.W. 10 recorded his police statement on 24.06.2003 before the Ist Investigating Officer but P.W. 10 did not inform the Ist Investigating Officer about the manner in which he and other family members including P.W. 6 were persuaded by Vishwaranjan to make payment of the ransom amount to the five abdutors and P.W. 6 on instruction from Vishwaranjan delivered the ransom amount to the abductors on the canal road after returning Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 159 from Fakuli chowk. The claim of the proseuciton that it was Vishwaranjan who restrained P.W. 10 from disclosing the factum of payment of ransom amount at his instance to the abductors to the higher police authorities otherwise not only payment of ransom amount to the abductors will go in waste but his son shall also lose his life is required to be examined in the background of the fact that ransom amount was paid on 4.4.2003, abductors having received payment instructed Vishwaranjan that victim shall reach home in the evening by 8 P.M. Victim having not returned in the night Vishwaranjan stayed in the guest room and left the house of P.W. 10 next morning assuring him that he shall make enquiry about the reason which prevented Babloo to return. Vishwaranjan having not responded within reasonable time, it was incumbent upon P.W. 10 to have disclosed the factum of payment of ransom amount to the abductors through Vishwaranjan. P.W. 10 not only recorded his 164 Cr.P.C. statement on 24.06.2003 but on the same day he also recorded his police statement. In neither of the two statements he whispered about the factum of having made payment of ransom amount to the abductors through Vishwaranjan, although more than reasonable time had gone by after delivery of the ransom amount to the abductors on 4.4.2003. In this connection, it is relevant to mention that in both 161, 164 Cr.P.C. statement recorded by P.W. 10 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 160 on 24.06.2003 allegations have been levelled by P.W. 10 agaisnt appellant Hari Shahi that he is a bad character and was instrumental in abduction of his son. Had the story of ransom amount being delivered to the abductors by P.W. 6 on 4.4.2003 as per instruction of Vishwaranjan been true, there was no occasion for P.W. 10 to implicate Hari Shahi, Shailendra Rai brother in law of Hari Shahi, Deepak Kumar Shahi son of co-brother of Hari Shahi, Arun Kumar Pandey partner of Shailenera Rai in liquor business in the protest petition dated 17.05.2003 (Ext. C), Complaint Case No. 1028 of 2003 filed on 19.05.2003 (Ext. B), statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. dated 24.06.2003 (Ext. D) and police statement dated 24.06.2003. Perusal of protest petition dated 17.05.2003 (Ext. C), Complaint Case No. 1028 of 2003 filed on 19.05.2003 (Ext. B), statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. dated 24.06.2003 (Ext. D) and police statement dated 24.06.2003 of P.W. 10 indicate that P.W. 10 suspected the involvement of Hari Shahi, his brother in law Shailendra Rai, Deepak Kumar Shahi son of co-brother of Hari Shahi, Arun Kumar Pandey partner of Shailenera Rai in liquor business in the abduction of his son. It also appears from the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 4 the tenant, nephew respectively of P.W. 10 that Hari Shahi in spite of being repeatedly asked to contact the Investigation Officer (P.W. 14) to explain the circumstance in which Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 161 he filed compromise petition in the case for securing release of Deepak Kumar Shahi, son of his co-brother, Hari Shahi continued to avoid the Investigating Officer (P.W. 14) to explain the circumstance in which he filed the compromise petition to secure release of Deepak Kumar Shahi, son of his co-brother who was suspected to be an accused in the case by P.W. 10. It further appears P.W. 3 another tenant of P.W. 10 asserted in evidence that one day prior to the occurrence while he had gone to purchase milk from the milk booth near Sanjay Cinema Hall saw Rajeev, Hari Shankar Shahi, Vishwaranjan talking to each other but could not hear their conversation. Aforesaid evidene of P.Ws. 1, 3, 4 that Hari Shahi was not responding to the request of P.W. 10 to meet the Investigating Officer for explaining the circumstance in which he filed the compromise petition for securing release of Deepak Kumar Shahi, son of his co-brother on bail under order dated 8.5.2003 as also the fact that P.W. 3 had seen Hari Shahi talking to Rajeev Kumar Singh and Vishwaranjan one day prior to the occurrence at the milk booth near Sanjay Cinema Hall is not sufficient to connect Hari Shahi with the abduction in question as hardly any evidence connecting Deepak Kumar Shahi with the abduction in question has been led, which is evident from his acquittal in the trial. Aforesaid two circumstances do not connect Hari Shahi with the abdution of Babloo. In the facts Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 162 and circumstances of the case, he deserves grant of benefit of doubd and his conviction is not fit to be maintained.
21. Now coming back to the case of Vishwaranjan. It is evident from the evidence of P.W. 14 that neither P.W. 10 nor his son P.W. 6 nor any other witness examined on behalf of the prosecution alleged any overt act against Vishwaranjan before P.W. 14 that it was Vishwaranjan who recommended grant of tenancy to Rajeev, on his recommendation tiled roof portion of the house was let out to Rajeev and that he was persuading P.Ws. 10, 9, 6 throughout to pay the ransom amount to the abductors. Aforesaid prosecution witnesses also did not assert before P.W. 14 that Vishwaranjan asserted before them that he was himself apprehended by the abductors near Bibiganj railway crossing and taken to Chapra where he was allowed to meet Babloo and then dropped at Chapra railway station, ransom amount was arranged at his instance and as per his instruction paid to the abductors by P.W. 6 on 4.4.2003. Aforesaid overt acts of Vishwaranjan may not have been reported by the witnesses to the Investigating Officer or any other person soon after such overt acts were committed by him as at the point of time overt acts were being committed Vishwaranjan commanded absolute confidence of P.W. 10 and his family members because of his being the mediator in the marriage of P.W. 8 and the victim with his own Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 163 sisters in law. In this connection, reliance is placed on the evidence of P.W. 2 where he has stated that he visited the house of P.W. 10 after about one month of the occurrence and while he was present a telephone call was received by his uncle P.W. 10, who during telephonic conversation became restless, began to perspire heavily, P.W. 2 thereafter took the receiver from P.W. 10 and learnt that caller was extending threat asserting that much time has lapsed, ransom money should be arranged quickly, P.W. 2 realized that the caller is a known person and perhaps Vishwaranjan. P.W. 2 disclosed his impression about the caller being Vishwaranjan to P.W. 10, who became angry and asserted that such could never be a fact as Vishwaranjan is a well-wisher. Aforesaid evidence apart once P.W. 10 and other family members began to suspect Vishwaranjan as the one involved in the abduction of Babloo requested P.W. 14 to file petition dated 30.06.2003 before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur praying, inter alia, to issue warrant of arrest against him, there has to be a flash back of his past conduct and while expressing suspicion against him such conduct should have been stated before the Investigating Officer and others. In the present case, even while expressing suspicion against Vishwaranjan none of the prosecution witnesses disclosed any of the past conduct of Vishwaranjan to the Ist Investigating Officer, P.W. 14, which Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 164 persuaded them to suspect his hand in the abduction of Babloo. It further appears that on 24.06.2003 the date on which P.W. 10 implicated Hari Shahi, Deepak Kumar Shahi in his 161, 164 Cr.P.C. statement he also went to the house of Vishwaranjan asking him to become witness against Deepak Kumar Shahi but on his refusal to become witness P.W. 10 not only threatened him with dire consequence of becoming accused in the present case but also assaulted him with brick causing injury on his person. Vishwaranjan having undergone treatment by Dr. J.P. Singh filed Complaint Case No. 873/2003 (Ext. B/1) on 26.06.2003 before the S.D.J.M., West Muzaffarpur enclosing the injury report dated 25.06.2003 (Ext. H/1) granted by Dr. J.P. Singh, who under Memo No. 711 dated 26.06.2003 forwarded the same to Dy. S.P., Muzaffarpur West. Dy. S.P. also forwarded the complaint to Officer in charge, Saraiya P.S. on the same day asking him to register F.I.R. under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and to investigate the case. Officer in charge, Saraiya P.S., however, did not register the case on 26.06.2003 or within a reasonable time from that day, although another copy of complaint was forwarded directly to the Officer in charge vide registered post receipt bearing no. 5904 dated 27.06.2003. It appears from order dated 7.7.2003 passed by C.J.M., Muzaffarpur in the present case that police submitted requisition dated 30.06.2003 for issue of Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 165 warrant of arrest against Vishwaranjan, which was considered and warrant of arrest against Vishwaranjan was directed to be issued under order dated 7.7.2003. F.I.R. on the basis of Complaint Case No. 873/2003 filed by Vishwaranjan against P.Ws. 10, 6 having not been registered by Officer in charge, Saraiya P.S., P.W. 14 in collusion with P.Ws. 10, 6 filed requisition dated 30.06.2003 for issue of warrant of arrest against Vishwaranjan, wife of Vishwaranjan filed petition dated 18.07.2003 (Ext. F) before the Collector, Muzaffarpur informing the Collector that Officer in charge, Saraiya P.S. ignoring the contents of Complaint Case No. 873/2003 and the direction to register F.I.R. against P.Ws. 10, 6 has not registered the F.I.R., P.W. 14 in collusion with P.Ws. 10, 6 sought warrant of arrest against the complainant (Vishwaranjan) by filing requisition dated 30.06.2003. Officer in charge, Saraiya P.S., however, registered Saraiya P.S. Case No. 157/03 on 2.8.2003. From petition dated 12.08.2003 filed by Vishwaranjan in Saraiya P.S. Case No. 157/03 (Ext. C/1), it appears that Vishwaranjan remained present in Saraiya P.S. along with his witnesses with effect from 2.7.2003 in support of his case and to record the evidence of his witnesses but neither the case was registered nor the statement of witnesses were recorded. In the said petition, it is further stated that Officer in charge, Saraiya P.S. in collusion with P.Ws. 10, 6 delayed Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 166 registration of Saraiya P.S. Case No. 157/2003. From the record it further appears that warrant of arrest was issued against Vishwaranjan on 6.9.2003 on the basis of which he was arrested on 15.09.2003 at 3 A.M. from his sister‟s house in village Kanti Ratanpura, P.S. Kanti but not produced in Court until 17.09.2003, as has been asserted in the petition dated 17.09.2003 filed on behalf of his father Ram Swarth Singh (Ext. G) on the basis of which report was called from the Officer in charge, Brahmpura P.S. vide order dated 17.09.2003. Vishwaranjan was, however, produced before Chief Judicial Magistrate on 18.09.2003 along with report of the Medical Officer, Sadar Hospital, Muzaffarpur dated 17.09.2003 (Ext. H). At the time of his production Vishwaranjan did not make any complaint against the police authorities but did state before the Court that he suffered a fall causing bodily injury and pain on his person for which the learned C.J.M., Muzaffarpur directed the jail doctor to do the needful. On 19.09.2003 a petition under Section 54 Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of Vishwaranjan (Ext. G/2) that he was detained in police custody for 84 hours and that he was beaten mercilessly during detention, tortured physically, mentally. In the light of the prayer made in the aforesaid petition (Ext. G/2) court below directed the jail doctor to submit report. P.W. 10 has been confronted in paragraph 98 of his cross-examination about the occurrence dated Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 167 24.06.2003 in which he along with P.W. 6 is said to have assaulted Vishwaranjan with brick on refusal of Vishwaranjan to record false evidence against Deepak Kumar Shahi as also about filing of complaint Case No. 873/2003 on 26.06.2003 which was referred to the police station for registration, investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., on the basis of which Saraiya P.S. Case No. 157/2003 was registered, news item to that effect was published in Hindustan newspaper dated 27.06.2003. In the same paragraph P.W. 10 also refuted the suggestion that after publication of the news item he took the police (P.W. 14) in collusion and persuaded the police to obtain process for arrest of Vishwaranjan by filing requisition dated 30.06.2003 in the Court of C.J.M., Muzaffarpur. P.W. 10 also denied the suggestion in paragraphs 106, 107, 108 of his cross-examination that he in collusion with Officer in charge, Brahmpura P.S. got Vishwaranjan arrested on 15.09.2003, further got him subjected to third degree treatment by getting him traceless for more than two days as he was produced on 18.09.2003 after being treated in Sadar Hospital, Muzaffarpur vide requisition, injury report dated 17.09.2003 (Ext. H). From perusal of the contents of Complaint Case No. 873/2003 filed on 26.06.2003 enclosing injury report dated 25.06.2003, on the basis of which Saraiya P.S. Case No. 157/2003 was registered and the evidence of Chitranjan Singh (D.W. 1), it is Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 168 evident that Vishwaranjan was assaulted by P.Ws. 10, 6 and others at his house on 24.06.2003 between 5-5.30 P.M. He filed the aforesaid complaint on 26.06.2003 which was referred to Dy. S.P., Muzaffarpur West for registration of F.I.R. Dy. S.P. forwarded the complaint to the Officer in charge, Saraiya P.S. for registration of the case and its investigation. Officer in charge, Saraiya P.S., however, registered the case on 2.8.2003. By filing petition dated 18.07.2003 (Ext. F) wife of Vishwaranjan informed the Collector, Muzaffarpur that after her husband filed Complaint Case No. 873/2003 against P.Ws. 10, 6 on 26.06.2003 alleging assault on himself by them, P.W. 10 took the Officer in charge, Brahmpura P.S. in collusion, who submitted requisition dated 30.06.2003 before the C.J.M., Muzaffarpur for his arrest in the abduction case, though by then hardly any material was collected against him during investigation of the abduction case. By filing petition dated 12.08.2003 (Ext. C/1) in Saraiya P.S. Case No. 157/2003 Vishwaranjan also informed S.D.J.M., West Muzaffarpur that Officer in charge Saraiya P.S. did not register the said Saraiya P.S. Case No. 157/2003 within reasonable time and thereby he could not record his statement together with the statement of his witnesses in support of the occurrence dated 24.06.2003 in which he was assaulted by P.Ws. 10, 6 before Saraiya P.S. from 2.7.2003 onwards. At this stage, it is also Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 169 relevant to mention that first Investigating Officer, P.W. 14 ruled out in paragraph 21 of his cross-examination involvement of Vishwaranjan in payment of ransom amount as in the said paragraph he categorically stated that P.W. 10 did not state before him that Vishwaranjan was regularly coming to his house and was persuading him to make payment of the ransom amount as evidence of Babloo being alive and in the captivity of the abductors has now been given, otherwise Babloo will be killed. In the same paragraph, P.W. 14 further stated that P.W. 10 did not state before him that Vishwaranjan spoke to P.W. 10, 6 and others that abductors allowed him to meet Babloo and further told him that P.W. 10 should now be convinced about Babloo being alive and make payment of ransom amount of Rs. 14 lakhs by arranging the amount at the earliest. In paragraph 22 of his cross-examination P.W. 14 further stated that P.W. 10 did not inform him that he paid the ransom amount of Rs. 14 lakhs but in the same paragraph P.W. 10 did state before P.W. 14 that heavy amount was paid to the abductors. In the light of the aforesaid statement(s) of P.W. 10 made before P.W. 14 the question which comes to the fore for consideration is about the quantum of the ransom amount and the person through whom the same was delivered to the abductors. Reliance on the evidence of P.W. 1 that in his presence tiled roof portion of the house was let out by the victim to Rajeev Kumar Singh Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 170 on the recommendation of Vishwaranjan and that victim went along with Rajeev on 31.01.2003 to deposit the amount with Sahara India cannot be placed as before the Ist Investigating Officer, P.W. 14, P.W. 1 recorded his police statement on 24.02.2003, 24.06.2003 but did not state such fact, which is evident from the evidence of P.W.
14. It may be noted here that P.W. 1 stated before P.W. 14 that the victim inducted Rajeev as his new tenant on his own by calling him personally and that on 31.01.2003 P.W. 1 was at his village home.
22. From the discussion above, it is evident that none of the prosecution witnesses including P.Ws. 10, 9, 6, 4, 1 during investigation, until submission of charge-sheet against Vishwaranjan dated 20.11.2003, informed the Investigating Officer that Vishwaranjan recommended for grant of tenancy in favour of Rajeev Kumar Singh and that he persuaded P.Ws. 10, 9, 6, 4 to make payment of ransom amount of Rs. 14 lakhs to the abductors after informing them that he was himself apprehended by the abductors near Bibiganj railway crossing, then was taken to Chapra, allowed to meet Babloo and asked the witnesses to arrange the ransom amount at the earliest and thereafter went to deliver the ransom amount on 4.4.2003 along with P.W. 6 to the abductors, who earlier apprehended him near Bibiganj railway crossing, took him to Chapra, allowed him to meet Babloo and dropped him at Chapra Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 171 railway station. After delivery of ransom amount the abductors assured Vishwaranjan that Babloo shall return on the same day by 8 P.M. It further appears from the discussion made above that Vishwaranjan was subjected to assault by P.Ws. 10, 6 on 24.06.2003, whereafter he filed Complaint Case No. 873/2003 on 26.06.2003 enclosing the medical certificate dated 25.06.2003. After filing of the said complaint case Ist Investigating Officer (P.W. 14) submitted requisition dated 30.06.2003 for arrest of Vishwaranjan which was considered by the C.J.M., Muzaffarpur under order dated 7.7.2003 and direction was issued for issue of warrant of arrest against Vishwaranjan. In the light of the aforesaid direction Vishwaranjan was arrested on 15.09.2003 but produced in Court on 18.09.2003 with injury report dated 17.09.2003 (Ext. H). At the time of production Vishwaranjan, however, did not allege any assault on the part of police personnel, which is evident from order dated 18.09.2003 passed by C.J.M., Muzaffarpur. From the evidence of P.W. 14 it appears that Ajit Kumar Mishra was called to the police station on 23.09.2003 and was arrested, who made disclosure statement on the same day after his arrest. It appears from order dated 26.09.2003 passed by C.J.M., Muzaffarpur that police remand of both Vishwaranjan Singh and Ajit Kumar Mishra was obtained for three days i.e. from 27.09.2003 to 29.09.2003 with direction to the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 172 Investigating Officer to produce the two in Court on 30.09.2003 at 11 A.M. During the aforesaid police remand Vishwaranjan Singh made disclosure statement on 29.09.2003. It further appears from the evidence of P.W. 14 that both Vishwaranjan Singh and Ajit Kumar Mishra led the recovery of purse containing identity card, one socks of the victim on 30.09.2003 from an orchard behind the house of Vishwaranjan in village Bahilwara in presence of P.W. 11 and D.W.
2. The seizure list (Ext. 1/1) was prepared by P.W. 14 over which not only P.W. 11 , D.W. 2 put their signature but Vishwaranjan and Ajit Kumar Mishra also put their signature. P.W. 11 has stated in his evidence that a pit was dug at the instance of Ajit Kumar Mishra and Vishwaranjan to exhume the dead body of Babloo but only purse, socks of the victim was recovered and seized in their presence over which P.W. 11 and D.W. 2 put their signature along with Vishwaranjan and Ajit Kumar Mishra. D.W. 2 has, however, stated in his evidence that nothing was recovered in his presence. The purse containing identity card and one socks was put for Test Identification Parade on 3.11.2003 in the office of Circle Officer, Kanti and identified by P.Ws. 4, 6, 12. The officer who conducted Test Identification Parade as also prepared Test Identification Chart has not been examined to support the identification of the items recovered on 30.09.2003. The Test Identification Chart, though Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 173 brought on record but has not been proved by the officer conducting the parade and preparing the chart. Signature of three identifying witnesses put on the chart has only been proved by the identifying witnesses as Exts. 3, 3/7, 3/1. In the circumstances, it would not be safe to place reliance on the chart. In any case, recovery of purse containing identity card of the victim and his one socks recovered at the instance of Vishwaranjan and Ajit Kumar Mishra is not sufficient to connect them with the abduction of the victim. Description of the aforesaid socks of the victim as indicated in the seizure list dated 30.09.2003 (Ext. 1/1) is that the socks is an old one and of grey colour with green, red lining and two small flowers. In this connection, it is also relevant to notice that P.W. 6, who recorded his police statement for the first time before second Investigating Officer, P.W. 13 as late as on 3.4.2004, did not state in his police statement that Vishwaranjan was persuading him and his father to make payment of the ransom amount and that his father was asking for concrete proof that his son is alive and in custody of abductors and that P.W. 6 went along with Vishwaranjan on Yamaha motorcycle as pillion rider for payment of ransom money to Fakuli chowk first where Vishwaranjan stopped his motorcycle for takeing tea, then returned, took turn on canal road, after proceeding half kilometer asked P.W. 6 to confirm whether any motorcycle is Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 174 following them and that Yamaha motorcycle which followed their motorcycle overtook their motorcycle and stopped. P.W. 6 also did not state before P.W. 13 that he had seen the motorcycle riders at Fakuli chowk. In view of the aforesaid omission in the delayed police statement of P.W. 6 it would not be safe to place reliance on his delayed police statement duly corroborated in Court that Vishwaranjan did ask him to accompany otherwise purpose will be defeated, Yamaha motorcycle riders apprehended him (Vishwaranjan) and that on instruction from Vishwaranjan he (P.W.
6) handed over the bag containing ransom amount to the driver of Yamaha motorcycle. The evidence of P.W. 5 who is not only a chance witness but also recorded delayed police statement on 7.3.2004 that after 15-20 days of Holi in night while he was going to Mahua on his tyre-cart for selling straw suffered stomach eche at Ajitpur Kothi, parked the tyre-cart and went to the house of Dr. Awadhesh Thakur for medicine where liquor party was on and he saw amongst the guests Vishwaranjan and bundles of currency notes kept on a table, cannot be relied upon to support the prosecution on the ground that such statement was made by P.W. 5 before the second Investigating Officer belatedly on 7.3.2004 much after submission of charge-sheet dated 20.11.2003 against Vishwaranjan.
23. Now, we come to consider the case of appellant Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 175 Nandlal Sah @ Nandwa. He surrendered in the Court on 20.10.2003 and remanded to jail custody until 3.11.2003, meanwhile, Investigating Officer prayed for his police remand on 23.10.2003, which was allowed for two days i.e. 24, 25.10.2003 with direction to produce Nandlal Sah @ Nandwa in Court on 26.10.2003 at 11 A.M. Investigating Officer, however, could not take Nandlal Sah @ Nandwa on police remand on 24.10.2003 as he was busy in the investigation of other kidnapping cases and again applied for police remand of Nandlal Sah @ Nandwa on 27.10.2003, which was allowed for two days i.e. 28, 29.10.2003 with direction to produce him in Court on 30.10.2003 at 11 A.M. In the light of the aforesaid order dated 27.10.2003 P.W. 14 obtained police remand of Nandlal Sah @ Nandwa on 28.10.2003, recorded his disclosure statement dated 29.10.2003. On the basis of disclosure statement of Nandlal Sah @ Nandwa P.W. 14 proceeded for village Bahilwara along with Nandlal Sah @ Nandwa and at his instance dead body of Babloo is said to have been recovered by P.W. 14 on 29.10.2003 at 12.15 P.M. from banana orchard of Mithu Singh in village Bahilwara in presence of Vishwanath Kumar Shukla (P.W. 11), Asarfi Rai and Ram Kumar Thakur (both not examined) vide inquest report (Ext. 6). Perusal of Ext. 6 indicate that in column „7‟ Investigating Officer mentioned that the dead body was wrapped on the waist with cloth, other parts Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 176 of the body was without cloth, near the feet sports shoe of right foot was kept along with soil smeared one socks and black full-pant. There is no separate seizure list of the articles recovered along with the dead body, namely, sports shoe of right foot, soil smeared one socks and black full-pant. The description of the socks recovered with the dead body on 29.10.2003 is also not mentioned in the inquest report, perhaps for the reason that it did not match the description of the socks recovered on 30.09.2003, although both the socks were recovered by P.W. 14 in presence of P.W. 11. In the circumstances, possibility of plantation of the articles near the dead body cannot be ruled out. In paragraph 7 of his evidence, P.W. 11 proved the inquest report, which was marked as Ext. 6 stating that the same was prepared in his presence after the dead body of Babloo was recovered by P.W. 14, over which he put his signature along with Ram Kumar Thakur and Asarfi Rai (both not examined). P.W. 11 being related to P.W. 10 and the other two independent inquest witnesses of the dead body i.e. Ram Kumar Thakur and Asarfi Rai having not been examined, it would be difficult to place reliance on the recovery of both the socks for maintaining the conviction of those appellants at whose instance the two socks have been recovered. Besides the recovery of the dead body of Babloo at the instance of Nandlal, he is connected with the abduction of Babloo in the light of Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 177 the evidence of P.W. 5, as in Court P.W. 5 has stated that he also saw Nandlal Sah @ Nandwa at the house of Dr. Awadhesh Thakur along with Vishwaranjan and others in the liquor party sharing the ransom amount. Aforesaid evidence of P.W. 5 that he saw Nandlal Sah @ Nandwa in the house of Dr. Awadhesh enjoying liquor party and sharing the ransom amount, cannot be relied upon to connect Nandlal Sah @ Nandwa with the abduction as in the police statement made by P.W. 5 before P.W. 13 on 7.3.2004 he has not named Nandlal Sah @ Nandwa, which is evident from the evidence of P.W. 13. Besides the aforesaid evidence of P.W. 5, Nandlal Sah @ Nandwa is also said to be connected with the instant crime with reference to the evidence of P.W. 11 in paragraph 8, in which P.W. 11 has stated that he has a pond in village Bahilwara by the side of the road in which he is rearing fish. In the month of the occurrence he was at his pond and saw one Ambassador car stopping near his pond between 8-8.30 P.M. In torch light P.W. 11 could see that the car was being driven by Nandlal Sah @ Nandwa. P.W. 11 also identified Amod Singh, Ajit Kumar Mishra, Bhola Singh and few others as the occupants of the car. The car swiftly went towards west. Next morning P.W. 11 asked his co-villager Nandlal Sah @ Nandwa as to why he was driving the car swiftly. Nandlal Sah @ Nandwa replied that he was engaged in the emergency work of Vishwaranjan Singh and Amod Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 178 Singh. Aforesaid evidence of P.W. 11, even if accepted, hardly connects Nandlal Sah @ Nandwa with the abduction. Recovery of the dead body alone at the instance of Nandlal Sah @ Nandwa does not connect him with the abduction of Babloo as from the evidence of P.Ws. 11, 14 it does not appear that the dead body was buried by Nandlal Sah @ Nandwa in the banana orchard of Mithu Singh in village Bahilwara. Unless it is proved that the dead body recovered at the instance of Nandlal Sah @ Nandwa is that of Babloo and was buried by Nandlal Sah @ Nandwa, he cannot be connected with the abduction of Babloo. In this regard, it is relevant to notice the opinion of Dr. Mumtaz Ahmad, Associate Professor, S.K.M.C.H., Muzaffarpur (P.W. 7) who conducted post mortem on the dead body recovered at the instance of Nandlal Sah @ Nandwa on 30.10.2003 and opined that the body was in process of advanced decomposition and not identifiable. He also mentioned in his examination in chief itself that the age of the deceased mentioned in the post mortem report is on the basis of the age of the deceased mentioned in the inquest report. He further stated in the cross-examination that he has identified the deceased as a Hindu male on the basis of entries made in the inquest report and challan which accompanied the dead body and is not his opinion. It is, thus, evident from the evidence of P.W. 7 that the prosecution case that the body recovered at the instance of Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 179 Nandlal Sah @ Nandwa is the body of the victim boy is not free from doubt.
24. Appellants Awadhesh Thakur, Bhola Singh were arrested on 7.2.2004, Amod Singh was arrested on 2.4.2004 by the 2nd Investigating Officer, P.W. 13. At the time of arrest of the three, pen, wrist watch, silver chain with locket of the victim was recovered from the custody of Awadhesh Thakur, Bhola Singh and Amod Singh respectively. The personal belongings of the victim were identified to be that of the victim as his name was found inscribed over the seized articles. Seizure list prepared after seizure of the aforesaid articles (Exts. 1/3, 1/4, 1/2) indicates that the seizure was made by P.W. 13 in presence of Bishwanath Kumar Shukla (P.W.
11), Ramakant Shukla (P.W. 1), Anjani Kumar, Vinay Jha. Amongst the seizure witnesses P.Ws. 1, 11 have been examined and they have supported the seizure of pen, wrist watch of the victim with R.K. Shahi inscribed thereon from Awadhesh Thakur and Bhola Singh respectively. P.Ws. 1, 11 though supported the seizure of pen, wrist watch from Awadhesh Thakur and Bhola Singh respectively but did not specifically assert in their evidence in Court that both were arrested in their presence and at the time of their arrest seizure of pen, wrist watch was made from them. Seizure of pen, wrist watch having not been made in presence of the seizure witnesses, it would Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 180 be unsafe to rely on the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 11. Seizure witness of silver chain with locket from Amod Singh has not been examined to support the seizure of silver chain with locket from Amod Singh. Having made the seizure of the pen, wrist watch, silver chain with locket the personal belongings of the victim, the three items were placed for Test Identification Parade in the office of B.D.O. Mushahari on 24.05.2004. In the Test Identification Parade P.W. 12, cousin of Babloo identified the pen, wrist watch and silver chain with locket as the personal belonging of Babloo. The officer who conducted Test Identification Parade as also prepared the Test Identification Chart has not been examined to support the identification by P.W. 12 of the items recovered, in the circumstances, it would not be safe to place reliance on the Test Identification Chart. Besides the evidence of P.W. 12, appellants Awadhesh Thakur, Bhola Singh and Amod Singh are said to be connected with the abduction of Babloo with reference to the evidence of P.Ws. 11, 6, 5. P.W. 11 has stated in his evidence that in the month of the occurrence while he was near his pond between 8- 8.30 P.M. in village Bahilwara he saw in the torch light an Ambassador car stopping near his pond which was being driven by appellant Nandlal Sah @ Nandwa and the appellants Awadhesh Thakur, Bhola Singh and Amod Singh were its occupants. The car Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 181 moved swiftly. In the morning his co-villager Nandlal Sah @ Nandwa, on being asked, informed P.W. 11 that he drove the car swiftly as he was engaged in the emergency work of Vishwaranjan Singh and Amod Singh. P.W. 6 has stated in his evidence that he saw the three appellants and others for the first time at Fakuli chowk near the tea, betel shop and then again on the same day on the canal road at the time of delivery of the ransom amount to Amod Singh, the driver of Yamaha motorcycle who passed on the bag to his pillion rider Bhola Singh. Awadhesh Thakur along with Nandlal Sah @ Nandwa was sitting as pillion on the Rajdoot motorcycle driven by Ajit Kumar Mishra. P.W. 5 has deposed in his evidence that he saw the three at the house of Dr. Awadhesh Thakur in the liquor party sharing the ransom amount. Aforesaid evidence of P.Ws. 11, 6, 5 is not worth reliance as the three witnesses never made such statement before the 1st, 2nd Investigating Officer. Besides the aforesaid evidence of P.Ws. 11, 6, 5, P.W. 9 has also deposed in Court that few (5, 1) days prior to the occurrence Amod Singh had come to her house along with Vishwaranjan. Aforesaid evidence of P.W. 9 can also not to be relied upon as such statement was not made by P.W. 9 before the Investigating Officer in her statement recorded on 1.2.2003.
25. In view of the discussison made in paragraphs 20 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 182 to 24 above, the appellants Hari Shahi, Amod Singh, Vishwaranjan Singh, Abdhesh Thakur, Nandlal Sah @ Nandawa and Bhola Singh are granted benefit of doubt. Their appeals (Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos. 905, 1048, 1051, 1052, 1054 and 1449 of 2007) are allowed. Appellant Hari Shahi is on bail. He is discharged from the liability of his bail bond. Appellants Amod Singh, Vishwaranjan Singh, Abdhesh Thakur, Nandlal Sah @ Nandawa and Bhola Singh are in jail. They are directed to be released from jail custody forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.
26. From the evidence of P.W. 9, it, however, appears that she asserted in Court that on 31.01.2003 at 5.00 P.M. her son Babloo was induced by the new tenant Rajiv Kumar Singh to come along with him to deposit Rs. 25-30,000/- of one of his relatives with Sahara India. While going, the two stated that they will return within half an hour. She further stated in her evidence that neither her son nor the new tenant returned thereafter. In Court P.W. 9 identified the appellant Ajit Kumar Mishra as the new tenant Rajiv Kumar Singh, who induced her son on 31.01.2003 at about 5.00 P.M. to come along with him to deposit Rs. 25-30,000/- of one of the relatives with Sahara India but the two never returned. Aforesaid evidence of P.W. 9 in Court is required to be examined in the light of the evidence of P.W. 14 that he called Ajit Kumar Mishra in the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 183 police station on 23.09.2003, arrested him, recorded disclosure statement and led to the recovery of purse, one socks of the victim on 30.09.2003 together with Vishwaranjan in presence of P.W. 11, who as per his own evidence, in paragraph 73, knew Ajit Kumar Mishra for last 10-12 years. In the light of the disclosure statement of Ajit Kumar Mishra leading to recovery of purse, one socks of the victim on 30.09.2003 and the fact that P.W. 11, one of the close relatives of P.W. 10, knew Ajit Kumar Mishra for last 10-12 years, Ajit Kumar Mishra ought to have been put on Test Identification Parade for being identified by P.W. 9 and other prosecution witnesses as the one who was the new teant inducted in the tiled roof portion of the house of P.W. 10 with whom victim went on 31.01.2003 at 5.00 P.M. on a rickshaw to deposit the amount of one of his relatives with Sahara India stating that both shall return within half an hour. Test Identification Parade having not been conducted by P.W. 14 to confirm, corroborate the identity of Ajit Kumar Mishra as new tenant, yet his identification in Court by P.W. 9 as the new tenant of her house with whom the victim went on 31.01.2003 cannot be ignored, as it is categorically deposed by P.W. 9 in Court, taken note above in paragraph 7 (ix) that new tenant Rajeev was inducted as a tenant in the tiled roof portion of the house and during his stay in the house for about 15 days became intimate, familiar with Babloo and Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.905 of 2007 dt.17-01-2014 184 the two went together on 31.01.2003 at about 5.00 P.M. During the period of stay of the new tenant in the tenanted portion P.W. 9 had enough opportunity to see the new tenant in the house and there may not have been any difficulty for her to identify the new tenant in Court for the first time after more than two years of the occurrence. In the facts of the present case, it cannot be said that P.W. 9 had only fleeting glance of the new tenant during the period of his stay in the tenanted portion and after passage of more than two years it would be difficult for her to identify him. Reliance in this connection is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Malkhansingh & Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2003 (4) PLJR 63 (SC), paragraph 10.
27. In the light of the discussion made in paragraph 26 above, Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1292 of 2007 filed by appellant Ajit Kumar Mishra is dismissed.
28. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the learned Court below with a copy of this judgment and order.
(V.N. Sinha, J) I agree (I. A. Ansari, J) :
A.F.R. Arjun/P.K.P./Rajesh (I. A. Ansari, J)