Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

50. P.W. 17 has given a graphic description of the places where he and P.W. 20 were kept during their confinement for approximately 52 days by geographical description including identifying land marks corroborated and confirmed by P.W. 19 during Police investigation.

51. Exhibit-8 dated 27.11.2007 is the letter written by P.W. 17 during confinement signed by P.W. 20 also asking P.W. 5 to pay up the ransom amount and secure their release. The demand for ransom stands established from the conversation between P.W. 5, when the accused Jawahar Koery and Suresh Koery identified themselves calling from the mobile phone number 9430029994, sent , to establish contact with the abductors and made the demand for a ransom of fifty lacs and further stated that they were sending the ring of P.W. 17 and a letter from them (exhibit-8) in proof of their confinement to claim ransom. Exhibit-8 stated that P.W. 5 should at the earliest arrange to have them released. The mobile forensic evidence brought on record during investigation by necessary reports from the telephone authorities in the manner provided for in Section 63(b) of the Evidence Act of the conversation on 28.11.2006 of a call made from the aforesaid number shows that a call was made from it on mobile no. 9934848065 of P.W.21, clearly proves that a demand for ransom was in fact made. Even otherwise, it is not the defence of the appellants that there existed any enmity between the victims and the appellants for false implication. Once the abduction has been established, surely the abductors did not do so in such planned organized manner with smooth flawlessness discussed, to play hide and seek games or only to scare the victims out of a business dispute or for any other reason to force them to desist from a particular course of action. An act of abduction in the present manner is the result of meticulous planning of the logistics with separate roles assigned to the individual players. The demand for ransom, therefore, clearly stands established. That it was actually paid or not is irrelevant.

Jawahar Koery @ Netaji

53. The Appellant stands convicted under Section 364 A / 34,395 and 412 I.P.C. and sentenced to death. P.W. 5 has deposed that he sent a mobile phone bearing number 94309029934 of his employee Rinku to the appellant for establishing contact. The abductors disclosed their name as Jawahar Koery and Suresh Koery over the phone while demanding the ransom amount, when the witness also spoke to P.W. 17 and 20 who cried and asked to take necessary steps to secure their release. P.W. 5 has stated that the appellant said that he would send the watch and ring as proof of custody of the victims by the abductors. The mobile forensics of the print outs of this phone number procured from the B.S.N.L authorities admissible in evidence under Section 63 (b) of the Evidence Act shows that their was a conversation between this number and mobile no 9934848065 on 28. 12.2006 when the former was in possession of the accused. It was on 27.11.2007 that P.W. 17 wrote the letter, Exhibit-8, to secure their release. P.W. 17 deposed that the appellant took his gold ring on the pretext of sending it to P.W. 5. The appellant was apprehended in the market place. He does not have clear antecedents as stated by P.W. 19. This Court finds no infirmity in the actions of the Police in not carrying out any physical search of his person at the Tiara Bazar. Obviously, the Police apprehended law and problem, if it did so, a phenomenon which unfortunately is gaining ground in this State when the accused are arrested in their own jurisdiction where they have clout and are freed by a mob. The ring of P.W. 17 has been recovered from him as soon as he was brought to the Police station, identified in T.I.P. by P.W. 17. On his disclosure the motorcycle used in the abduction belonging to the son of the appellant Krishna Bihari Singh was recovered from the house of appellant Hari Bansh Ram identified by P.W. 17 and proved by P.W.13, Abdul Hamid, the Circle officer. The appellant was identified in the dock by P.W. 17 as 'Netaji' when he disclosed his name as Jawahar Koery. The very reasoning discussed above for a first physical identification in Court , absence of earlier T.I.P. with regard to appellant Krishna Bihar Singh applies with equal force to the present appellant also and the Court does not consider it necessary to reiterate the reasoning‟s all over again. P.W. 17 stated that at the time of abduction, an abductor was referred to as 'Netaji' by his accomplices. When the mobile phone of P.W. 17 bearing no. 94310 27544 rang on a call from P.W. 5 at 9 P.M. while they were inside the Bolero, this 'Neta ji' took the mobile phone and answered 'that he was everybody's father', and disconnected the phone. This phone call has been proved by evidence from the B.S.N.L. Authorities admissible under Section 63 (b) of the evidence act to have been made. After the victims were made to get down from the Bolero and it was driven away, 'Netaji' walked with them and told the others that the victims shall stay at his house for the night. Evidence has transpired that it was his house at village Simri and they had dinner there from where they moved to village Manpur in house of one 'Gupta ji'. This Court has, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the identity and involvement of the appellant in the abduction and confinement of the victims stands fully established also. He has also stated in his confession that it had come to their knowledge that the "Mishra Bandhu" of Buxar always came to Nuao and Ramgarh to realise money dues from retailers and which is admissible in evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The diary recovered from the possession of this appellant contained a telephone number in coded alphabetic identity which he decoded as 9430896559 and revealed as belonging to the accused Krishna Bihari Singh given for use to accused nick named Vermaji who died during trial.

69. The mobile forensic evidence of the call printouts of the mobile phones of the concerned appellants admissible under Section 63 (b) of the Evidence Act furnished by the B.S,.N.L authorities during the period of confinement shows that the cell phones were located within the B S N L tower Kochas A in the location of the villages where the victims were kept during confinement.

70. This Court finds no merit to warrant interference with the conviction of the appellants under section 364 A/34, 395 and 412 I.P.C. variously. On the question of sentence, the parties were put on notice both on the question of the death sentence awarded and the enhancement in the term of life imprisonment beyond its normal connotation of 14 years. Counsels for the parties made elaborate submissions that not only was death sentence not warranted but also that the term life imprisonment be read in its normal connotation of 14 years and no case for enhancement thereof as discussed in the case of Swami Sraddananda (supra) or Nazir Khan (supra) was made out.