Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. On 24.10.2005, Sub-inspector of Police, Abhay Narayan Singh, posted in Special Branch, Patna, went to Magistrate Colony in connection with kidnapping case of Manager of Bajaj Allianz in order to ascertain the house where the kidnapped Manager of Bajaj Allianz is kept.

5. The case of the prosecution is that S.I. Abhay Narayan Singh met with Ram Charitar Prasad, Assistant Sub- Inspector of Police, Shashtri Nagar Police Station and requested him to assist in the matter of locating the house at Kalyan Bihar Colony. Thereafter information was sent to Arshad Jama, Dy.S.P., Sachivalaya, who reached the spot with force and Sub-Inspector Shri Kant Pathak of Danapur police station. They conducted raid in the house where they found Rahul Surana, Ashimul Haque with five accused persons and on enquiry Rahul Surana and Ashimul Haque told the police officer that they have been abducted and confined there. It is the case of the prosecution that during the course of raid they recovered country made pistol from the possession of Ranjeet Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.720 of 2007 dt.16-09-2017 Kumar Rai and also recovered motorcycle of Rahul parked in the campus of the said house. The prosecution story further is that Rahul Surana and Asimul Haque disclosed that Rahul @ Ajay Jha brought them to the said house on the pretext that he will introduce to some Bhaiya, who will give them some work relating to computer and when they reached the house they found Vikash Singh @ Vikki, who was introduced as Bhaiya and thereafter one person with gun entered the house and assaulted them with belt and took their mobile phone, ATM Card etc. Thus, the prosecution has built up the story that Rahul Surana and Asimul Haque were abducted and kept in confinement from 16.10.2005 to 24.10.2005 for ransom but they were recovered by the raiding party.

10. From the materials, it appears that Rs.48,000/- in different installments was withdrawn from the account of the firm of Rahul Surana.

11. Mr. Abhay Kumar Singh, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of appellant Ajai Kumar Jha @ Rahul has assailed the very genesis of the case and referring to the chain of events submitted that in the totality of the facts situation, no case of kidnapping for ransom is made out. He submitted that in the instant case P.W.4 Rahul Surana has built up the case of kidnapping for ransom. In his deposition, he has stated that he is in the business of computer, he has done Diploma in Software technology from Computer Maintenance Corporation (CMC) Institute, Patna and during the course of undergoing that Diploma course he has developed friendship with certain boys including Rahul @ Ajay Jha, who was of senior batch. After 1998 he met with Rahul @ Ajai Jha in 2005 and when he disclosed that he is in business of computer, Rahul Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.720 of 2007 dt.16-09-2017 enquired about the mobile number and one or two days thereafter Rahul @ Ajay Jha made a call on his mobile and has asked him to see at Mauryalok but due to the busy schedule he did not meet Rahul. He (P.W.4) introduced the story that on 16.10.2005 at around 10.00 A.M. he received a call from Rahul @ Ajai Jha, who asked him to see Madhuban Restaurant at Hartali Chawk. Thereafter Rahul along with Asimul Haque visited Madhuban Restaurant on his bike. When they both reached at about 12 ½ P.M. Rahul was sitting there, he told that in connection with Software business there is a Bhaiya, who will give details, if you meet him and thereafter on the same bike all the three moved towards Ashiana More and entered in a house. It is the statement of Rahul Surana that he parked the bike out side the gate and entered the house with Rahul @ Ajay Jha, who introduced a person that he is Bhaiya, thereafter one man with pistol entered the room and assaulted Rahul and Asimul with belt and threatened that if you raise halla, you will be done to death and thereafter it is the case of Rahul that out of fear he handed over the purse, A.T.M. card, key of bike and mobile. Similarly on the gun point mobile was taken from Asimul Haque.

12. Mr. Singh has submitted that the manner in which Rahul and Asimul Haque reached the alleged house indicate that they reached there for business purpose and they were confined by the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.720 of 2007 dt.16-09-2017 accused persons and their ATM card and Mobile phones were taken by the accused persons and thereafter from their mobile certain call was made to the father of Rahul Surana. Mr. Singh thereafter referring to the case lodged by the father of Rahul Surana, which was the basis for lodging the F.I.R. submitted that from the F.I.R. as well as deposition of the father of Rahul Surana one cannot find any specific demand of ransom, as the only allegation in the F.I.R. is that one unknown person has informed him that Rahul is with him, you arrange money, we will contact later on. Mr. Singh referring to the deposition of the prosecution witnesses has submitted that there is contradiction in the version of the prosecution witnesses. He submitted that the entire investigation was perfunctory. No effort was made by the investigating officer to investigate on the point (a) whether any ransom was demanded by the accused person and if made through which phone number or mobile number. There is no attempt to collect the call details of the accused and the father of the victim to co-relate the communication pertaining to demand of ransom. He submitted that the investigating officer has not made any attempt to examine the details of the bank transaction of the firm of Rahul Surana. He highlighted that in the instant case, the police has not been able to ascertain the most crucial fact that during the aforesaid period bank account of Rahul Surana was operational and Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.720 of 2007 dt.16-09-2017 not only withdrawal but deposit was also made in the said account. The police has not made any attempt to ascertain who was operating the aforesaid Bank account. He also highlighted the prosecution case that victims were kept in confinement after alleged kidnapping in a thickly populated area is beyond comprehension. It is most unrealistic that these two victims were confined in such thickly populated area for 8 days and the landlord and the neighbours were completely ignorant of the incident of kidnapping and use of force in silencing the victims. Mr. Singh referring to the deposition of the landlord submitted that the landlord was residing in the first floor of the same house and as such one cannot believe his story of ignorance, about kidnapping and confinement of the victims in the ground floor of the tenanted premise. Both stories of kidnapped kept in the tenanted premise for 8 days and ignorance of the same by landlord cannot go side by side. He also highlighted that the story of kidnapping in the instant case is most artificial and unrealistic story. He submitted that at the time when they were recovered, they were free, as it is nobody case that their hands and legs were tied by the accused persons and as such they could not move from that place or there is no material to establish the physical torture of the victim during 8 days confinement. There is absolutely no case or material to support physical torture in this case, as it is not supported by any medical evidence. In the totality Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.720 of 2007 dt.16-09-2017 of the facts situation, the case appears to be a case of voluntarily residing of the victim at the place and not under any duress, coercion or any threat. Mr. Singh thus submitted that in the totality of the facts situation, no case of kidnapping much less kidnapping for ransom is made and the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the charges.

16. Mr. Singh highlighted the perversity of the approach of the trial court, as instead of explaining contradiction by the prosecution, the trial court has tried to explain the lacuna in the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.720 of 2007 dt.16-09-2017 prosecution case by explaining and filling up the gap. The contradictions taken together and the lapses in the investigation and non-explanation of various situation connected with the crime creates serious doubt that P.W.4 and P.W.7 have staged drama of their kidnapping in order to extract money from their parents and the case of kidnapping by these appellants are under serious doubts.