Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. Sushma Kumari, the Officer-in-charge of Nasariganj P.S. is the Investigating Officer, who has been examined as P.W.8 in Sessions Trial No. 39 of 2005 and P.W.6 in Sessions Trial No. 220 of 2006. In paragraph 1 of her examination-in-chief, she has stated that on 24.3.2004, she recorded the fard-e-beyan of Jai Prakash Gupta at 9.00 A.M., which is in her handwriting and was signed by the informant in her presence on the basis of which Nasariganj P.S. Case No. 30 of 2004 was registered and the formal First Information Report was drawn by her, Ext.6. She took up the investigation and recorded further statement of the informant, statement of witness Raju Kumar as also inspected the place of occurrence, which is pitch road in front of the house of the informant in Hariharganj locality of Nasariganj town wherefrom the son of the informant, while playing with Raju, was abducted. She instructed the informant to install caller I.D. in his telephone No. 232342 and thereafter arrested accused Chandan Kumar and returned to the police station. Informant informed her that the ransom call was received between 9-10 O clock on the basis of which print out was obtained. Confidentially the Investigating Officer learnt about the complicity of Chhotan Khan who earlier was tenant in Hariharganj locality, but is presently residing in Milky locality within Piro police station. Having received such information, along with Officer-in-charge Piro police station, she raided the house of Chhotan Khan and arrested him. On interrogation, Chhotan Khan accepted his complicity along with Arbind Kumar of Nasariganj, Pradeep Kumar, Sonu Kumar, Nanhkut Chaudhary alias Shyamji Chaudhary, Chandan Kumar and his father and brother, Gautam, Gyani, all resident of Mohalla Hariharganj. Having arrested Chhotan Khan, the Officer-in-charge along with Chhotan Khan came to Nasariganj and as per the lead given by Chhotan Khan, raid was conducted at the house of accused Arbind Kumar, Pradeep Kumar, Sonu Kumar, Chandan and his father, Rajendra and brother Gautam Kumar and Shyamji Chaudhary alias Nanhkut Chaudhary and they were arrested. On search, 2000/- was recovered from the person of Chhotan Khan. Chhotan Khan also recorded his confessional statement, Ext.5/C, wherefrom it appears that Chhotan Khan along with Nanhkut Chaudhary and Arbind Kumar had taken Ujjawal Kumar to Dehri railway crossing near the bank of river Sone and had killed him by pressing his throat with coconut rope. He had taken out the T-shirt of the victim and had concealed the dead body near the bank of river Sone beneath the watercress. On the basis of the statement of Chhotan Khan, the Officer-in-charge along with armed force and accused Arvind Kumar, Nanhkut Chaudhary and Pradeep Kumar and family members of Ujjawal Kumar went to Dehri and having reached near the bank of river Sone, recovered skeleton/ carcass of Ujjawal Kumar from the watercress near the bank of river Sone as per the information divulged by the accused persons, a coconut rope soaked with mud and water was also recovered. The skeleton was identified by the informant and his relative, Bharat Prasad on the basis of the dent mark on the forehead and the overlapping of the incisor (front) teeth. In paragraph 13 of the examination-in-chief, she (I.O.) has given the description and topography of the place wherefrom the carcass was recovered. The recovery/ seizure memo of the skeleton was prepared by the officer-in-charge in her own handwriting in presence of the informant and Bharat Prasad, the memo is marked as Ext.4. In paragraph 16, the Investigating Officer states that the informant had obtained T-shirt of his son from the accused persons after payment of ransom amount of One lac, which was produced by the informant before her and production/ seizure list was made in presence of the witness Ajay Kumar Gupta and Ramji Prasad, Ext.4/A. Arrested accused Shyamji Chaudhary alias Nanhkut Chaudhary, Pradeep Kumar, Arbind Kumar also recorded their confessional statement and singed the same out of their own volition, Exts. 5, 5/A and 5/B. In paragraph 18, the Investigating Officer stated that she visited the house of Nanhkut Chaudhary where his mother, Lalita Devi gave the Investigating Officer 1000/- (one thousand) stating that the said amount was given to her by Nanhkut. Having recovered the amount, the Investigating Officer prepared seizure-cum- production memo in presence of two witnesses, Ext.4/C. In paragraph 19, she has stated that in course of investigation, she visited the house of Jai Prakash Gupta and recorded his further statement as also the statement of Mandodari Devi, Kashi Prasad Gupta and Bharat Prasad. In paragraph 20, she states that she obtained print out of the calls received by the informant, which is appended with the case diary. In paragraph 21, the Investigating Officer states that in course of investigation, Gyani Prasad of Hariharganj was arrested. In the same paragraph, she further states that skeleton/ carcass recovered was sent to P.M.C.H. for examination and report. Having collected the materials and having found the allegations to be true, charge sheet against accused Chandan Kumar, Arbind, Pradeep Kumar, Sonu Kumar, Chhotan Khan, Gautam Kumar, Gyani Prasad, Shyamji Chaudhary alias Nanhkut Chaudhary, Rajendra Prasad, Triloki Upadhyay and Avinash Upadhyay was submitted and the investigation kept pending against accused Surendra Prasad and Salekh Kumar. Further investigation was also conducted by her, but she handed over the investigation to S.I. Rajeev Kumar on 9.8.2004. In paragraph 27, she has stated that she produced the informant, Jai Prakash Gupta for recording his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. In the same paragraph, she has further stated that the date and time of the steps taken by her in course of investigation has been mentioned in the case diary by her. In paragraph 29, the Investigating Officer identified the material exhibit coconut rope and the T-shirt. In paragraph 30, the Investigating Officer accepted the fact that witness Raju son of Ramji Sah has stated before her that he was playing with Ujjawal in front of his house, but little earlier, he returned to his own house and having lit the lantern, resumed studies and at about 6-7 in the evening saw Ujjawal going along with Chandan of the same locality and one stranger. She further stated in the same paragraph that Raju had further stated before her that Ujjawal had asked him also to come along, but he refused to accompany saying that he had to study and that he (Raju) learnt later that Ujjawal was abducted. In paragraph 31, the Investigating Officer stated that witness Ganesh Prasad had also supported the occurrence before her. During cross-examination, in paragraph 32, the Investigating Officer reiterated that Chhotan Khan was arrested on the basis of the confidential information in the night between 26-27.4.2004 at 1.30 A.M., whereafter he recorded his confessional statement on 27.4.2004 at about 9.30 A.M. In paragraph 34 of the cross- examination, she has admitted that in the seizure list, she had not indicated the size and the mark of the T-shirt. In paragraph 39, the Investigating Officer states that she met the informant on 27.4.2004 at the police station as also outside the police station and on the same day she arrested seven accused persons. She further stated that on 27.4.2004, she has not mentioned in the case diary that the informant had identified the accused persons, while paying the ransom money. In paragraph 41, the Investigating Officer accepts that before lodging Nasariganj P.S. Case No. 30 of 2004, family members of the informant had given information, which has been recorded in the station diary, details whereof has been mentioned in the case diary. Paper containing the original information is presently not before her and may be in the station diary. To verify the contents of the information recorded in the case diary, she deputed instructed A.S.I., Ramanand Singh as also herself visited Hariharganj. She further confirmed that she had read the contents of the information, but she does not remember whether information about the colour of the T-shirt as also general description about the stature of Ujjawal was mentioned therein. She also confirmed that A.S.I. Ramanand Singh did not submit his report regarding information received and mentioned in station diary. In paragraph 42, the Investigating Officer stated that the informant had not stated anything in his further statement beyond the statement recorded in the fard-e-beyan. In paragraph 43, the Investigating Officer confirmed that the second place of occurrence of the instant case i.e. place from where the body was recovered is a lonely place. In paragraph 45, she denied the suggestion that the investigation made by her is erroneous as also the fact that Chhotan Khan had not recorded any confessional statement and further that on his statement neither any coconut rope nor skeleton of Ujjawal was recovered. She further denied the suggestion that money recovered from Chhotan Khan was his own money. In paragraph 47, she confirmed that the father of the informant had submitted written information on 22.3.2004 and to verify the contents of the written information, she had gone to the house of Rajendra on 24.3.2004 and had made enquiry from the ladies of the house of Rajendra Prasad, but their statement has not been recorded in the case diary. In paragraph 49, she confirmed that she had arrested Rajendra and Gautam from their house on 27.4.2004 at about 4.00 P.M. on the basis of the statement of Chhotan Khan, who was arrested in the night between 26-27.4.2004 at about 1.30 A.M. In paragraph 51, the Investigating Officer states that prior to 27.4.2004, complicity of only Chhotan Khan in the instant case was known to her. In paragraph 52, she accepts that in compliance of the direction of the S.P., informant was produced for recording his statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. In paragraph 55, she denied the suggestion that charge sheet has been submitted against Rajendra, Gyani and Gautam without there being any material against them only with a view to harass them. In paragraph 56, the Investigating Officer states that Sanha information was in regard to disappearance of Ujjawal. Having recorded the fard-e-beyan, neither further statement nor any other information from the informant was recorded in the case diary until 27.4.2004. In paragraph 57, the Investigating Officer states that having recovered the skeleton at about 1.30 P.M., she recorded the statement of Pradeep Kumar, which was at his own volition. In the same paragraph, she further states that no effort was made by her to record the confessional statement of Pradeep Kumar before the Magistrate. In paragraph 58, the Investigating Officer confirmed that Pradeep Kumar is the neighbour of the informant whose house is at a distance of 100-150 yards from the house of the informant. In paragraph 59, the Investigating Officer states that Kashi Prasad had not stated before her that he had gone to Dhawapul on 7.4.2004, but she admits that Kashi Prasad had stated before her that he had identified the accused persons on 8.4.2004, but neither disclosed their name nor stated before her that they had covered their face with towel. In paragraph 60, the Investigating Officer states that Jitendra Prasad had not stated before her that he had gone to Dhawapul on 7.4.2004. She further states in the same paragraph that Jitendra Prasad had not disclosed the name of the accused persons sitting at the Dhawapul. In paragraph 61, the investigating Officer states that she did not take any steps to ascertain criminal antecedent of the accused persons. In paragraph 62, she denied the suggestion that Pradeep Kumar has been falsely implicated at the instance of the informant. In paragraph 65, the Investigating Officer states that during the period between 24.3.2004 till 27.4.2004, she did not record the statement of any charge sheet witness, except Raj Kumar. In the same paragraph, she further states that in between 8.4.2004 till 27.4.2004, the informant, Om Prakash and Jitendra Prasad did not state before her that on 8.4.2004, the informant along with Kashi Prasad and Jitendra Prasad had gone to Dhawapul to pay one lac to the accused persons and Chhotan Khan had given them T-shirt of Ujjawal. In paragraph 66, the Investigating Officer, however, states that on 27.4.2004, the informant stated before her that the accused persons having taken one lac, gave him the T- shirt of Ujjawal. In paragraph 67, the Investigating Officer described the colour of T-shirt produced by the informant. In paragraph 68, the Investigating Officer states that the statement of the informant, Mandodari Devi, Kashi Prasad, Bharat Prasad was recorded on 28.4.2004. In paragraph 69, the Investigating Officer has stated that the bones seized were sent for examination, but it has not been mentioned in the case diary that photograph of the skeleton was taken by her. In paragraph 70, she states that photograph of Ujjawal Kumar was obtained, which is kept in the station diary along with Sanha, but there is no photograph in the case diary. In paragraph 71, she has stated that the recovered skeleton was brought from Dehri in a gunny bag. In paragraph 72, she stated that she has not entered the contents of the Sanha in the case diary, but number of the station diary entry has been indicated in the case diary without indicating the time when the same was received. In paragraph 73, she stated that non- F.I.R. accused, Triloki Upadhyay was arrested on 4.4.2004 and his statement recorded whereafter Avinash Upadhyay was arrested and his statement was also recorded. In paragraph 74, she states that the court had asked explanation about the injuries on the person of Chhotan Khan and she submitted the same, but she does not remember about the order passed on the explanation. In paragraph 75, she stated that Mandodari Devi never informed her that Jai Prakash on return had told her that Arbind, Pradeep, Gyani, Chandan, Nanhkut and Chhotan Khan had accepted money from him. In paragraph 76, she stated that Mandodari Devi had not given any signed statement before her three days after the occurrence. In paragraph 77, she stated that Mandodari Devi never told her that prior to the occurrence, Rajendra, Surendra, Salekh, Sonu, Gyani, Gautam and Chandan were at the entrance of their residence. She further stated in the same paragraph that Mandodari Devi had not stated before her that after ten minutes when she came out of her house, there was absolute silence and Rajendra etc. had disappeared. In paragraph 78, the Investigating Officer stated that Kashi Prasad never stated before her that his mother had told him that she along with her father was sitting at the entrance of the residence when Ujjawal and Raju were playing and Rajendra, Gyani, Gautam, Chandan, Surendra, Salekh and Sonu were standing at the entrance of their residence. She further states that Kashi Prasad never stated before her that when Ujjawal declined the instruction of his grandmother to come inside the house, his grandmother went inside the house to light the lamp and having lit the lamp when she returned, she did not find Raju and Ujjawal as also Rajendra, Gyani, Gautam, Chandan, Surendra, Salekh and Sonu at their residence. The Investigating Officer further states that Kashi Prasad never informed her that her mother had learnt from his sister-in- law, Sunita Devi who had gone to the roof that she had seen Chandan going along with Ujjawal. The Investigating Officer further states that Kashi Prasad never told her that having learnt about the occurrence, he had gone to the house of Rajendra and Surendra for enquiry. In paragraph 79, the Investigating Officer states that Jitendra had not stated before her that he learnt from his maternal aunt that when she came outside her house the second time, she neither found Ujjawal nor the family members of Rajendra and Surendra. The Investigating Officer further states in the same paragraph that the witness had not stated before her that having learnt about the occurrence when he returned from Orissa then family members of his maternal uncle informed him that Ujjawal was playing near the entrance of Rajendra and that the family members of Rajendra and Surendra were there. The Investigating Officer further stated in the same paragraph that the witness had not stated before her that at the time of payment of ransom money at the Dhawapul, accused persons had threatened of dire consequences in case of disclosure. In paragraph 80, the Investigating Officer stated that Bharat Prasad never stated before her that having come to Hariharganj, he learnt from Jai Prakash, his parents and Sunita Devi that Ujjawal was playing and Chandan holding his hand, took him to the lane where a stranger was waiting. The Investigating Officer further stated in the same paragraph that the witness had never stated before her that accused persons were asking for payment of ransom and the deal was struck at One lac. She further stated in the same paragraph that the witness never stated before her that the accused persons had called them to Dhawapul at 7.00 P.M. and after going to Dhawapul with money, they could not meet the accused persons and the accused persons again called them the next day at Dhawapul at 1.00 P.M. The Investigating Officer further stated in the same paragraph that the witness never stated before her that ransom money was taken by Chhotan Khan and that he gave T-shirt of Ujjawal. She further stated in the same paragraph that at the time of payment, besides, Chhotan Khan 5-6 other accused persons were also there, including Arbind, Pradeep, Gyani and Sonu. In paragraph 81, the Investigating Officer has stated that the informant never informed her that his son had overlapping teeth and dent mark over his forehead. In paragraph 82, the Investigating Officer stated that the informant never stated before her that his mother ever informed him that Sunita told her that while picking up clothes on the roof, she had seen Chandan holding the hand of Ujjawal and going away along with him followed by Surendra, Salekh, Gayani etc. In paragraph 83, the Investigating Officer asserted that during investigation, she did not record the statement of Sunita Devi. In the same paragraph, she further denied the suggestion that the case diary has been doctored and that she had begun writing the case diary on 28.4.2004. She also denied the suggestion that the skeleton was not recovered from the place wherefrom it is said to have been recovered. She further denied the suggestion that stray body parts and bones of unknown have been collected by her from the cremation ground which is projected to be the skeleton of Ujjawal Kumar. She also denied the suggestion that there is no independent witness about the recovery of the skeleton. The Investigating Officer has further denied the suggestion that being in collusion with the informant, she had collected erroneous material in the case diary. In paragraph 84, she denied the suggestion that she never visited Dhawapul during the investigation. From perusal of the deposition of the officer-in-charge in both the trials, it does not appear that she has disputed the assertion of Jitendra Prasad that he learnt about the disappearance of Ujjawal from his sister-in- law, Sunita Devi and others and information to that effect was given by him to the officer-in-charge as has been asserted by him in paragraph 13 of his deposition in Sessions Trial No. 220 of 2006, as such, there is no difficulty in concluding that the name of Sunita Devi appeared in course of investigation through the mouth of a witness and her statement was required to be recorded in the case diary.

^^ eSa nkjksxkth ls ugha dgh Fkh fd pksj yksx :Ik;k ysdj esjs yM+ds t; izdk"k dks fpUg ds :i esa tlhZ dqrkZ fn, Fks A **

17. With reference to the evidence of the Investigating Officer, P.W.8 in paragraphs 59 and 60, which is quoted below:

^^ xokg dk"kh izlkn esjs le{k fnukad 07-4-2004 dks /kkokiqy ij tkus dh ckr ugha dgk gS A dk"kh izlkn vius c;ku esa 8-4-2004 dks vfHk;qDrksa dh igpku djus dh ckr dgk gS fdUrq uke ugha dgk gS A /kkok iqy ij cSBs O;fDr;ksa }kjk viuk eqWga rkSfy;k ls <+d a us dh ckr ugha dgk gS A xokg ftrsUnz izlkn vius c;ku esa 7-4-04 dks /kkokiqy ij tkus dh ckr ugha dgk gS A ;g xokg esjs le{k vius c;ku esa /kkokiqy ij cSBus okys fdlh vfHk;qDr dk uke ugha crk, A ** learned counsel for the appellants submitted that P.Ws. 4 and 5 did not even narrate before the Investigating Officer that they had gone to Dhawa bridge on 7.4.2004 and that they did not name the accused, who were identified at the said bridge and with reference to the aforesaid statement, it is submitted that the story of identification at the bridge is wholly unreliable. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the production of the T-shirt of the victim on 27.4.2004 by the informant, which he had received in exchange of payment of ransom money on 8.4.2004, is a circumstance suggesting that entire prosecution story has been cooked up after the recovery of the carcass on 27.4.2004 as there is no earthly reason to explain as to why the production of the T-shirt before the Investigating Officer was held up until recovery of the carcass/ skeleton. In this connection further reference is made to the evidence of the Investigating Officer that Chhotan Khan was arrested on confidential information in the night between 26/27.4.2009 at 1.30. A.M. whereafter on the basis of his statement other co-accused, Nanhkut Chaudhary, Pradeep and Arbind were arrested and the four assisted the Investigating Agency in the recovery of the skeleton/ carcass on the bank of river Sone buried beneath the watercress. In the back ground of the aforesaid fact, it is submitted that if the informant and his two brothers had identified the accused persons, while paying the ransom money on 8.4.2004, they should have disclosed the name of the culprits and produced the T-shirt on 8.4.2004 or within a reasonable time thereafter, such disclosure would have given credence to the prosecution case, but as the Investigating Officer has proceeded to arrest the accused, Chhotan Khan on confidential information, the prosecution case that ransom money was paid on 8.4.2004 in exchange of T-shirt, is lacking credence, which is required to establish offence under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code. In this connection, learned counsel submitted that this Court should ignore the evidence of the informant, P.W.7 in paragraph 9 at page 150 of the brief, which reads as follows:

19. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that recovery of the skeleton/ carcass at the instance of appellants Chhotan Khan, Nanhkut Chaudhary, Pradeep and Arbind would only establish recovery of the skeleton at the instance of the aforesaid four appellant and they shall be liable only for conviction under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Recovery of the skeleton at the instance of the aforesaid four appellants shall not mean that they are also held guilty for the offence under Sections 364A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

20. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the Bone Examination Report, Ext.7 should not be relied upon in the instant case as skeleton recovered was of 4 ½' in length, but was sent for examination in a hardboard box of 11"x 11"x7". In the circumstances, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, skeleton was broken and thereafter sent for examination to P.M.C.H. and as the skeleton was broken, there is possibility that the bones sent for examination were not of the same skeleton, which was recovered at the instance of the four appellants. In the circumstances, according to learned counsel, no reliance should be placed on the findings recorded in the report that the bones were of human male aged about 13 to 15 years.