Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Sd. Zalim Daku."

The next letter is dated June 17, and informs Chauhan about the futility of running after the police to help him to trace his son and tells him that the writer will give him only three chances, this letter being the second chance and the third chance to be given by a letter to be written after the 20th. It asks him to make up his mind quickly whether he will part with his money or will have the head of his son. Ho instructs him to place quickly on the wall in front of his house-the mark =indicated in his letter so as to convey his consent to pay the ransom. It also assures him that the writer has no personal grudge against him and that his boy will not be put to any trouble but that he must unfailingly get the ransom of Rs. 10,000. The letter contains a number of other details indicating knowledge of the writer about the movements of Chauhan and his contacts with the police and the movements of various other persons along with Chauhan including the two appellant The third and fourth, letters dated June 22 and 23, were received on the same day enclosed in one cover. The third letter dated June 22, informed him, that in spite of his writing to him that his son is with him, he is trying to approach the police and that the police cannot trace his son, that his son is sad and deteriorating in health, that he has written to him for the last time and that he cannot delay the matter for more than a week at the most and that in case his terms are not acceptable he will not hesitate to put an end to the life of the boy and that he should paste a paper on the outside of his door containing the mark of two lines and that all this must be done by the evening of the 24th. The fourth letter dated the 23rd purports to offer a concession and undertakes to accept Rs. 7,000 as the ransom instead of the original demand of Rs. 10,000 and asks that the mark on the wall should be placed by the 24th and promises thereafter to send a letter on the 25th indicating the place, time and date where. the money is to be kept for the writer to get it. It is in evidence that after the receipt of these letters a poster was pasted at the instance of Chauhan on the 25-26th June in front of his gate compound wall with the words "I can pay Rs. 3,000 up to 1st July" and along with it the mark indicated in the previous letters was put. Thereupon another letter dated the 28th June was received which intimated that the mark put by him has been seen, but that nothing less than Rs. 5,000 would be received and giving detailed instructions as to where the money should be kept and who all are to accompany for his assistance. It is to be noted that the two appellants are to be amongst those who, according to the writer of that letter, are insisted upon for accompanying Chauhan when he goes to deposit the money at the appointed place and at the appointed time. A sketch also was attached to the letter indicating the place where the money in a bag was to be kept. The place indicated is a small culvert after passing over the railway bridge on the river Jumna. This letter was accompanied by another letter dated the 1st July reiterating that he cannot take anything less than Rs. 5,000 and reiterating also the instructions given in the previous letter as to the place where the money is to be kept, the persons who are to accompany, and other details and precaution This was followed by another letter dated 3-7-1952, containing some further instruction It is in evidence that in pursuance of the various instructions, Chauhan with his party, including the two appellants, went to the spot. i. e , the culvert near the Jumna railway bridge and placed there the sum of Rs. 5,000 in a bag. But before doing so he got the numbers of the actual currency notes which he was about to give to the person purporting to be Zalim Daku, noted by the Additional District Magistrate on the 3rd and 4th July. After having deposited the amount, these persons in two batches were waiting at each end of the Jumna railway bridge. It Was found that the money was lifted away by some unknown person at about 8-30 p.m. and that in its place a letter dated the 4th July was placed. This letter indicated that Chauhan should go to the (Allahabad) Junction railway station "tomorrow" (i.e. 5th July) at 3 O'clock and take his son away. There was no indication whether this meant 3 p. m. or 3 a. m. Chauhan went to the Junction railway station at 3 p. m. and did not find his son. He waited on till 3 a. m. The two appellants came there at about 12 in the night ostensibly to keep company with him. The police came on the spot and arrested both the appellants at the station and recovered one ten rupee note from a betel shop keeper closeby who stated, at the time, that the appellant Ram Bharosey gave that to him for the purchase of betel-leaveS That currency note was subsequently found to be one of the notes whose numbers had been noted. Thus both these appellants were arrested on the early morning of the 6th July. On a search of appellant Ram Chandra's house, a sum of Rs. 115 was recovered out of which eleven ten rupee notes tallied with the noted number On the 7th July the police officer interrogated both the appellant Following that interrogation, Ram Chandra with the police proceeded to his house. He went into a room therein and dug the ground and brought out two bundles containing currency notes of ten rupee denomination. The notes totalled a sum of Rs. 4,650 and the numbers thereof tallied with the noted number It may be mentioned that on the 7th July Chauhan received another letter purporting to be from Zalim Daku bearing date 5th July. This letter informs about the receipt of the ransom and intimates Chauhan that he need not be anxious about the boy, that he should not search for him in vain and that he can shortly meet his son and be satisfied. The appellants were arrested before receipt of this letter.

3. As already stated previously, the various letters with the addresses on the envelopes relating thereto purporting to have been written from Zalim Daku have been found by the hand writing expert to be the writing of the appellant Ram Chandra. In addition, to this opinion there were certain items of internal and external evidence which confirmed this opinion. For instance the letters contain information about the movements of Chauhan most of which, on the evidence, were known only to the two appellant The evidence disclosed also conduct of the appellants which disclosed advance information of the contents of the letters to be received. There was found in the letters the fairly constant use of the word Baqi, which is found to be the characteristic of the appellant Ram Chandra's undisputed letter There was the fact of his ability to supply certain obvious omissions in the letters such as Nahi when he was asked to read them in the normal course, on the ground of illegibility. These and other features enabled the courts below to find to their satisfaction that all these letters were written by the appellant Ram Chandra. On the basis of the above material the main facts relating to the case, found concurrently by both the courts below are that (1) a substantial portion of the currency notes, whose numbers had been noted and which formed the ransom were found in the possession of the appellant Ram Chandra, (2) one of such notes has been traced to the possession of the appellant Ram Bharosey, who, on the evidence, gave it to the betel shop keeper at the Allahabad Junction railway station for purchasing betel leaves, and (3) all the ransom letters were in the hand-writing of the appellant Ram Chandra. The further important evidence in the case was that relating to the confession made by the appellant Ram Chandra while he was in jail custody Now, as judgments show, the conviction in respect of the offences charged against both these appellants is based mainly on this confession corroborated by the above facts The first question, therefore, that arises is how far reliance on the confession for the conviction and sentence relating to the various offences was safe on the facts and circumstances of this case. To appreciate the position thus arising, it is necessary to set out the confession and the attendant circumstances.

8. 80 far as the appellant Ram Chandra is concerned the circumstantial evidence against him in respect of both the offences is clear. On the finding that the various ransom letters are in his handwriting and on the finding that a very large number of the noted currency notes which formed the ransom money was traced to his possession, there can be no doubt as to his conviction under S. 386, Penal Code. It may be that normally it is not safe to treat expert evidence as to handwriting as sufficient basis for conviction. But in this case the authorship of the letters has been held by the courts below to be that of appellant Bam Chandra, on various items of external and internal evidence already noticed above, in addition to the opinion of the expert. As regards the charge against him under Section 364, Penal Coda, for kidnapping, though there is no direct evidence, the various ransom letters categorically state that the missing boy is in the custody or control of the writer thereof. It is asserted therein that on payment of the ransom money, the boy will be restored at a particular time and place. We find it hard to believe that this can be mere pretence in order to strike terror in the mind of the father of the boy and to obtain money. It is to be noticed that the ransom letters started from the day next after the disappearance of the boy and they continued pouring in, right up to the 4th July, a period of over three weeks It appears to us to be extremely improbable that a person can keep up the pretence for so long if he had not the absolute confidence that there was no chance of the boy returning until the time which he had to take for bringing about payment of the ransom. The tone of these letters justifies one of two inferences, viz., either the boy has been already murdered, as the confession suggests, or the boy, having been kidnapped, is kept in effect-tive custody so as not to be able to escape. We have, for reasons already given, felt it unsafe to convict the appellant Ram Chandra of the offence of murder. But there is absolutely no reason why his very admissions in the various letters of which he has been found to be the author, should not be treated as clear evidence against him that he has obtained the custody of the boy by kidnapping. It is true that the boy has not, in fact, been restored as promised in the various letter But this by itself is no indication that the boy had not been kidnapped by persons of whom the writer of these letters is one. It may be recalled that though the boy was not restored on the 5th July as promised, there was a further letter from the same writer dated the 5th July promising to restore the boy later on. This promise may not have fructified since before it was received the appellants were arrested. We are of the opinion that the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the appellant, Ram Chandra is guilty of the offence under Section 364 and 386 of the Indian Penal Code. It may also be mentioned that though we haved considered it unsafe to act upon the confession as basis for the conviction in respect of murder, there is no reason why the confession in so far as it relates to the two offences of kidnapping and extortion should not be taken into consideration as against this accused to lend assurance to the conclusion we have reached against him in so far as these offences are concerned based on circumstantial evidence.

10. Next as regards the case of the appellant Ram Bharosey both the Courts have for good reasons, found that he along with the appellant Ram Chandra, is guilty of criminal conspiracy to commit the offences charged. This would equally support the case against him under S 34, Penal Code In our opinion, there is no reason to reverse that finding. It is true that in the judgments of both the courts below the confession of the appellant Ram Chandra is relied on against Ram Bharosey for holding him guilty of the offences charged against him. It is rightly urged that under Section 30, Evidence Act confession of a co accused can only be taken into consideration but is not in itself substantive evidence. But we are satisfied that even excluding the confession as substantive evidence, there is enough against the appellant Ram Bharosey to find him guilty of the offence for criminal conspiracy to commit the offences of kidnapping and extortion along with the appellant Ram Chandra. There is evidence that Ram Bharosey was aware of the contents of at least some of the ransom letters before they were actually received by Chauhan. This is particularly so with reference to the contents of the letter, Ex. P-8 received on the 3rd July a portion of whose future contents was disclosed by the appellant Ram Bharosey to Chauhan when he felt a doubt on the 1st July. Similarly also there is evidence that Ram Bharosey anticipated the contents of the letter, EX. P-7 when on receiving the letter Ex. P-6, Chauhan felt a doubt and expressed it to this appellant. There is also evidence that Ram Bharosey was seen suspiciously moving about on the 26th Jane, examining the place near the Jumna bridge where ultimately the ransom was instructed to be kept. This examination was a 7 days before the instructions were issued and is very significant. There is evidence about both the appellants being together constantly and repeatedly suggesting to Chauhan the payment of the money during the period when he was receiving the letters and of their getting him to agree. There is also the evidence that when he wag arrested, one of the notes which was part of the ransom was traced to him on the con-temporaneous statement of the betel shop keeper. All these facts are sufficient to sustain the finding of criminal conspiracy as between both the appellants, Ram Chandra and Ram Bharosey. The concurrent finding, therefore, that he is guilty of criminal conspiracy along with Ram Chandra for the commission of the offences under Sections 364 and 386, Penal Code is not open to challenge. It is also clear that, on the same circumstantial evidence, both must be held equally guilty of the main offences themselves under Section 34, Penal Code. Further, in view of the fact that the offences were actually committed in pursuance of the conspiracy or in pursuance of the common intention the appellant Ram Bharosey would be equally guilty with Ram Chandra of the two substantive offences under Sections 364 and 386, Penal Code and would be liable to the same sentence. (See Section 120-B, Penal Code taken with s 109 Penal Code.)