Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. Learned trial judge has since awarded death sentence to all the appellants, he has made reference to this Court for confirmation of the same.

3. In short, the prosecution case is that on 6.5.2009, at about 10.30 am, Smt. Nidhi Thakur made a telephonic report to police station, Narsinghpur that her brother Pankaj had gone to Jabalpur in the morning of 5.5.2009 for getting his Wagon R car No. MP-20-CA-6184 serviced. He was with Pradeep Dubey till 4.00 O'clock in the evening, but, thereafter, he could not be contacted. His mobile was also switched off. In the night, at about 12.30 pm, from the mobile of Pankaj some unknown person made a call on the mobile of Krishna Rajput, the mother of Pankaj, that Pankaj had been abducted in Jabalpur and if they wanted him to be released, they will have to pay ransom. He threatened that if information was given to police, Pankaj would be killed. On 6.5.2009, at about 9.00 am, Krishna Rajput again received a call that if she wanted to see her son alive, she will have to manage Rs.80 lacs as ransom. Ultimately, the deal was struck for Rs.30 lacs. On the report lodged by Smt. Nidhi Thakur, a case under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code was registered by ASI Umesh Dubey (PW-22).

18. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there is no direct evidence in the case, the conviction of appellants has been based on circumstantial evidence including the evidence of approver Dolly Ladiya (PW-1). He submitted that the trial court misappreciated the evidence of Dolly Ladiya and committed error in placing reliance on it. The investigation in the case was defective. It was not proved that all the accused persons had conspired to abduct deceased for obtaining ransom. The recovery of the dead body and the ornaments of deceased at the instance of accused persons was not reliable. Shri R.S. Patel, learned counsel for accused Rahul Rajak submitted that the recovery of ransom money from the possession of Rahul was suspicious since his arrest was not made at the time of alleged recovery of money. In the alternative, learned counsel submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case it was not a rarest of rare case calling for award of death penalty. On the other hand, Shri Umesh Pandey, learned Government Advocate and Shri Surendra Singh, learned senior advocate for the complainant, submitted that the evidence adduced by the prosecution was sufficient to bring home the charges against accused persons. Trial court committed no error in relying upon the evidence of approver Dolly Ladiya and on the evidence of recovery of various articles belonging to deceased at the instance of accused persons. They supported and justified the judgment of conviction and sentence of death passed by the trial court.

34. Raghuvir Singh (PW-8) and Abhishek Singh (PW-11) further proved that they had kept cash of Rs.30 lacs for payment as ransom in two bags in the house of Raghuvir Singh. In that regard memorandum (Ex.P/10) was drawn by Inspector Ritesh Sahu. The same cash in bags was taken to Jabalpur and was picked up by accused Rahul and ultimately seized from Rahul. In our opinion, it has been proved beyond doubt that the money arranged by Raghuvir Singh for payment as ransom to abductor was recovered from the possession of accused Rahul.

68. It is true that Dolly Ladiya (PW-1) in Ex.P/1 did not say that accused Rahul told to her about obtaining Rs.80 lacs from the parents of deceased, but, in our opinion, this omission cannot be held to render her evidence unreliable because the purpose for which this statement was recorded was the disclosure of a mobile set in her possession. It could not be expected to have contained the whole of the prosecution story. Further, the fact that motive of accused Rahul was to obtain ransom from the parents of deceased finds corroboration from the fact that he made a demand of Rs.80 lacs initially but later obtained Rs.30 lacs on the pretext of ransom from them. From the evidence of Dolly Ladiya, it is revealed that accused Rahul Rajak used her as a bait for calling deceased to Bhedaghat. All the three accused persons and the deceased were residents of Narsinghpur, but they did not themselves call deceased to Bhedaghat. This clearly indicated their connivance and intention to abduct the deceased. Though Dolly Ladiya stated that her relations with deceased were only professional, but the manner in which she called him and persuaded him to go to Bhedaghat where he ultimately was murdered indicated that her relations with deceased were some what more than mere professional. From the evidence of Dolly Ladiya it is clearly established that the deceased was last seen alive with all the three accused persons.