Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

P.W. 10 is Dr. Ajay Kumar whose evidence only suggests that Dr. Chandra took dinner at his residence on the alleged date of the occurrence prior to his kidnapping.

Hence P.W.s 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 10 are hearsay witnesses and they are witness only to the fact of kidnapping and recovery of the vehicle of victim.

P.W. 11, Nilam Kumari is the first I.O. of the case who admits about the submission of the written report by P.W. 4. In para 6 this witness has stated that on 22.05.2003 at 5:30, Anil Kumar Singh, the appellant of Cr. Appeal No. 1145 of 2008 was arrested by Danapur P.S. in a car theft case where he confessed(Ext-15) that he is involved in the conspiracy of the kidnapping of Dr. Ramesh Chandra. The confession of Anil Kumar Singh has been referred in para 56 of the case diary. This witness has also deposed that Anil Kumar Singh though stated that the victim has been kept in the village Chiraura but the actual whereabout is known to Ranvijay and Bablu whose residence is known to Binay Kumar, then Binay Kumar was arrested and on the information supplied by Binay Kumar, Ranvijay Sanoj and Dhiraj were arrested on 20.05.2003 at 11:00 P.M. from village- Nandlal Chapra. The confession(Ext-14) of Ranvijay Pratap Singh was recorded through which it was discovered that the victim has been confined in village Chiraura under the Naubatpur P.S. in the house of Bhola Singh and demand of ransom has been made to tune of Rs. 50 lakhs of which Rs. 25,000,00/-(twenty five lacs) was to be paid to Sunil Panday, M.L.A. and the rest Rs. 25,000,00/-(twenty five lacs) was to be shared by the rest accused persons. This witness also deposed about the recovery of the mobile and sim cards particularly sim card of the victim Dr. Chandra from Ranvijay and the seized telephone directory containing the numbers of the informant and victim's clinic and resident. This witness has also stated that from the place of captivity, three accused persons, namely, Munna Singh, Chitranjan and Sanoj Kumar were arrested with three country made loaded pistols along with cartridges (one each). Consequently Naubatpur P.S. Case No. 90 of 2003(Ext-12) was registered against three arrested persons on the written report of Dillu Lohar, (P.W. 14) Officer-in-charge of Naubatpur P.S. In para 44 this witness has stated that nothing incriminating was recovered from Binay. Though in his deposition (para 65 and 75) this witness has stated that he made no initiative ever for conducting T.I. parade of accused persons.

Learned counsel for the State Mr. Ashiwini Kumar Sinha has submitted that offences under Section 364 I.P.C. take place in different phases, hence the evidence has to be appreciated in a composite whole in which every person is equally responsible. It is then submitted that in a case of kidnapping the chances of getting direct evidence are bleak. So far as admissibility of the confessions of Anil Kumar Singh and Ranvijay Singh under section 27 of the Evidence Act are concerned, the informations to the effect that the victim has been kept in village Chiraura have been disclosed, hence the confessions are admissible. Learned A.P.P. has categorized the appellants in three categories under the first category Anil Vinay (appellant) and Ranvijay (not appellant) are the persons who supplied the information. Second category is of Muna Singh , Chitranjan (appellants) and Santosh Kumar (not appellant) who were caught at the place of captivity whereas Lulan and Dhiraj (appellants) fall in the third category of being indulged in conspiracy of kidnapping for ransom.