Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14) of Ranvijay the police went to the village Chiraura, recovered the victim, Dr. Chandra from the house of Bhola Singh where three persons Munna Singh, Chitranjan and Santosh Kumar Tiwari were also arrested with three loaded pistols, one each, along with live cartridges. Then seizure list was prepared (Ext-10) on which P.W. 8 and P.W. 9 were made seizure list witnesses and for the same Naubatpur P.S. Case No. 90 of 2003 was registered under Section 25(1)B and 26 of the Arms Act on 21.05.2003 at 6:30 A.M. Subsequently on 21.05.2003, the statement of Dr. Ramesh Chandra under Section 164 Cr.P.C.(Ext-8) was recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna where Dr. Chandra disclosed that how his car was first dashed by a Maruti Van and then he was kidnapped at Serpentine Road, near Panchmandir. From the conversation of the accused persons victim came to know about accused names as Munna Singh, Chitranjan and others and during captivity few accused names were also gathered by the victim as Ranjeet, Pappu, Bablu and Sanoj. In 164 Cr.P.C. statement the victim Dr. Chandra also disclosed that ransom demand of Rs. 50,000,00/-(fifty lacs) was made by the accused persons.

On behalf of Lulan Sharma of Cr. Appeal No. 1195 of 2008, Pramod Kumar Singh, learned counsel submitted that the victim in dock (P.W.12 para 9) has failed to identify this appellant to be involved in the offence. This appellant is not named in the second F.I.R. In 164 Cr. P.C. statement the victim does not name this witness. P.W. 13 the second I.O. has not identified him. P.W. 14 in para 8 has admitted that this appellant was remanded from other case and except the confessions (Exts. 15 and 16) of Anil Kumar Singh and Ranvijay Pratap Singh, which are not admissible, there is no evidence against him moreover he was never put on T.I.P. Learned senior counsel for the Munna Singh, Mr. Suraj Narayan Prasad Sinha, in Cr. Appeal No. 1291 of 2008 submits that though he has been named in 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim which has not been corroborated by any other evidence. Moreover he was not arrested on 21.05.203 because had he been arrested on 21.05.2003, he would had been remanded when the police brought the victim for recording 164 Cr.P.C. statement on 21.05.2003 but he was remanded on 23.05.2003 which proves this fact that subsequently the petitioner was framed in this case. Hence it is submitted that Naubatpur P.S. Case No. 90 of 2003 is also antedated otherwise had this appellant been arrested in Naubatpur P.S. Case No. 90 of 2003 on 21.05.2003 then he would had been remanded on 21.05.2003 because the distance between the village- Chiraura and Patna is hardly 50 K.M., hence the police first framed the case, got the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of victim recorded and then subsequently prepared the papers. P.W. 12 in para 14 of his deposition has named three accused persons except the appellant. Lastly it has been submitted that the statement of the accused under Sections 313 Cr. P.C. is not an empty formality as no question was asked that the appellant was arrested from Chiraura the place of captivity, hence on this score also the conviction is vitiated. In this regard reliance has been placed on 2009(3) SCC (Criminal) 92 (Ranvir Yadav versus State of Bihar) which stipulates that Section 313 Cr. P.C. enables the accused personally to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him.

The factum of kidnapping of P.W. 12 Dr. Chandra is an admitted fact, the only question has to be decided in present appeals is that whether the evidences on record prove the case beyond shadow of reasonable doubt justifying appellants' conviction.

After scanning the evidence of the witnesses, materials on record and considering the submissions of the respective parties, it appear that there is no eye witness to the occurrence and the witness of the actual occurrence is only P.W. 12 the victim Dr. Ramesh Chandra. From his 164 Cr.P.C. statement(Ext-8) as well as his evidence, it appears that Dr. Chandra was actually kidnapped by four persons at Serpentine Road on 17.05.2003 at 10:45 P.M. and from the conversation he gathered the name of three persons out of whom he recollected two names Munna and Santosh but during the trial in para 8 he recollected three names as Bablu, Sanoj and Pappu though in para 7 of his deposition he has admitted that three accused were arrested from the place of captivity, used to guard him. P.W. 12 has admitted in his 164 Cr.P.C. statement and in his evidence that a demand of Rs. 50,000,00/-(fifty lacs) as ransom was made.

It is well settled law that 164 Cr.P.C. statement is not a substantive piece of evidence and it can be used only for the purposes of corroborations and contradiction. Hence in this case also the 164 Cr.P.C,. statement of Dr. Chandra (Ext-8) can only be used for the purposes of corroboration and contradiction.

In as case of the circumstantial evidence, it is very important that the chain of circumstances should be complete. So far as appellant Munna Singh and Chitranjan Kumar are concerned, in their case, it appears that chain of circumstances are complete as their complicity is initially corroborated by confessions of (Exts. 14 and 15) Anil Kumar Singh and Ranvijay, further their names gathered by victim from conversation of accused and subsequently their arrest from the place of captivity and above all P.W. 12 subsequently deposed that the persons arrested from the place of captivity were guarding him through out. So far as the remand of the three persons on 23.05.2003 after two days of their arrest on 21.03.2005 is concerned, it was a lapse on the part of the prosecution, hence the delayed remand of the accused persons would not vitiate the entire case.