Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

g. Whether Rambaran Singh had paid an amount of Rs. 6 lacs by way of ransom to any body?

Rambaran (P.W.1) has stated in para 6 of his evidence that he received a phone call on his mobile that one person would meet him in Grain Market Dabra, and his identity was also told and was directed to handover the money to him. Accordingly, he paid the amount of Ransom to the said person. Although the appellants have not cross examined this witness on this issue, but in view of the surrounding circumstances, it has become necessary to check the authenticity of this statement. The case diary statement of Rambaran (P.W.1) was recorded on 27-10-2006, and in the said statement there is no mention of giving any amount of ransom. Thus, it is clear that this witness might have given the amount after 27-10-2006. But why this witness did not inform the police about the demand of ransom and handing over of the amount to a person in Grain Market, Dabra, is a question which has remained unanswered. When the witnesses had already approached the police on 27-10-2006, then it was expected that they would have taken police in confidence with regard to demand of ransom and the fact that one person would come to collect the ransom amount. Further more, Ramdutt (P.W.4) has stated in para 4 that a total amount of Rs. 10 lacs was paid to a person at Dabra Grain Market, whereas Rambaran (P.W.1) has stated that an amount of Rs. 6 lacs was given at Grain Market, Dabra. Rambaran (P.W.1) also does not speak about the presence of Ramdutt (P.W.4) at the time of handing over of the ransom amount. Further, it appears that the allegation of giving ransom amount was made for the first time in the Court. Ramdutt (P.W.4) has further admitted in para 7 of his cross examination that the fact of handing over the ransom amount is being narrated by him for the first time in the Court.

Further, there is nothing on record, that on what date, Rambaran (P.W.1) received the phone call for payment of ransom amount. There is nothing on record to show that on what date the ransom amount was paid. There is nothing on record to clarify that, when Rambaran (P.W.1) and Ramdutt (P.W.4) had already approached the police on 27-10-2006, then why the fact of demand of ransom and handing over the ransom amount to one person at Grain Market, Dabra was not told to the police. When Rambaran (P.W.1) had received a telephonic call for payment of ransom amount, then why he did not inform the police, has not been clarified by him. Even it has not been clarified by these witnesses, that from where the amount of Rs. 6 lacs or 10 lacs were arranged. There is nothing on record to show that whether Rambaran (P.W.1) and Ramdutt (P.W. 4) were having the amount in their own house or they had withdrawn the same from bank account. No details of bank account have been produced. If these witnesses had taken money from somebody else, then no one has been examined to prove that he had given money either to Rambaran (P.W.1) or Ramdutt (P.W.4). Surprisingly, Dharam Singh, the father of Jitendra (P.W.3) is alive and still he has not entered into witness box with regard to payment of ransom amount. There is a reason for Dharam Singh for not entering in the witness box. The said reason shall be considered in the following paragraphs. But one thing is clear, that where any ransom amount is required to be paid, then it would be the father of abductee who would make arrangements of the money, but in the present case, that aspect is completely silent. Thus, in considered opinion of this Court, the prosecution has failed to prove that Rambaran (P.W.1) or Ramdutt (P.W.4) had paid any ransom amount to anybody.

h. Whether the abductees Praveen and Jitendra were released by the kidnappers ?

This Court has already come to a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove that Gappe had taken away the abductees and has also come to a conclusion that no demand of ransom has been proved and even the fact of payment of ransom amount has also not been proved, therefore, there is no question of release of abductees from the captivity of the accused persons. Further, according to D.J. Rai (P.W.8) as well as Praveen (P.W.2), after the release, the abductees were sent for medical examination, however, their M.L.C. reports have not been proved, to show that whether they were really sent for medical examination or not? Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the abductees Praveen (P.W.2) and Jitendra (P.W.3) came back to their house on 6-11-2006 after they were released by the accused persons.

29. Thus, it is clear that minor discrepancies, embellishments, contradictions in the evidence of witnesses would not be material to discard the prosecution story but where the discrepancies or contradictions are to such an extent which shakes the very foundation of the prosecution case and which makes the evidence of the witnesses untrustworthy, then it would be very difficult rather hazardous to rely upon such evidence.

30. Thus, if the evidence which has been led is considered then it would be clear as noon day, that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Praveen (P.W.2) and Jitendra (P.W.3) were taken away by appellant Gappe @ Vimlesh and were handed over to Lalla and Dinesh. The prosecution has also failed to prove that any letter was written by Praveen and Jitendra and has failed to prove that any letter Ex. P.1, P.4 and P.5 were received by Rambaran (P.W.1). The prosecution has also failed to prove that Rambaran (P.W.1) went to Itawah Jail and met with the appellant Raju @ Ganga Singh. The demand of ransom of Rs. 6 lacs has also not been proved and the fact of making payment of ransom amount has also not been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. On the contrary, it appears that the appellant Gappe @ Vimlesh has been falsely implicated due to enmity and the appellant Raju has been falsely implicated. Even the possibility of the F.I.R. being ante-dated and ante-timed cannot be ruled out. Consequently, it is held that the appellant Gappe @ Vimlesh is not guilty of committing offence under Section 364A read with Section 11/13 of M.P.D.V.P.K. Act. Similarly, appellant Raju @ Ganga Singh is also held not guilty of committing offence under Section 364-A/120B of IPC read with Section 11/13 of M.P.D.V.P.K. Act. They are acquitted of all the charges.