Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. Jai Prakash Gupta, the informant and father of Ujjawal has been examined as P.W.7 in Sessions Trial No. 39 of 2005 and P.W.5 in Sessions Trial No. 220 of 2006. On the date of occurrence i.e. 21.3.2004, he was at Raigarh in the State of Orissa, his work place and was telephonically informed about the occurrence at about 8.00 P.M. by his father. Having learnt about the occurrence, he telephonically informed his other brothers, namely, Om Prakash, Jitendra and Kashi Prasad about the occurrence and proceeded for Hariharganj reaching on 23.3.2004 at 8.00 P.M. Having reached home, he spoke to his mother, father and Sunita Devi, wife of his younger brother about the occurrence. The mother of the witness informed him that on 21.3.2004 at about 6.00 P.M., Ujjawal Kumar and Raju Kumar were playing in the vacant land in front of their house and Chandan Kumar, Gautam, Gyani Prasad, Rajendra Prasad, Salekh Kumar, Sonu Kumar and Surendra Prasad were at the entrance of their respective houses. His mother further informed him that she asked Ujjawal that evening has set in and he should come inside the house to resume studies, but Ujjawal continued playing. Mother of the witness thereafter went inside the house for lighting the lamp and his father went to ease himself. Having lit the lamp, mother of the informant came out of the house and found that Ujjawal Kumar was not present. She thereafter called Ujjawal loudly and went to the house of Raju Kumar, who informed her that he had seen Chandan holding the hand of Ujjawal and taking him towards the lane. Ujjawal had also asked Raju to come along with him, but Raju did not accompany him. Having learnt the aforesaid fact, mother of the informant searched for Ujjawal in the lane for some distance, but his whereabouts could not be known. Mother of the informant thereafter came back to her house and was informed by Sunita Devi, wife of the younger brother of the informant, Om Prakash that while she was picking up the dry clothes at the roof, she also saw Chandan holding the hand of Ujjawal and both were going together and behind them, Rajendra Prasad, Gautam Kumar, Gyani Prasad, Sulekh Kumar, Sonu Kumar and Surendra Prasad were following the two. On 24.3.2004, Sushma Kumari, the Officer-in-charge of Nasariganj police station came to the house of the informant and recorded his fard-e-beyan. Having lodged the fard-e- beyan, informant searched for Ujjawal in his own village as also in the adjoining villages. In course of search, enquiries were made from the family members of Rajendra Prasad and Surendra Prasad, but they became angry and did not divulge anything about Ujjawal. Ransom call was received on 30.3.2004 on telephone number 232342. Initially the ransom caller was demanding 20, 5 lacs. On 5.4.2004, deal was struck for payment of the ransom money of One lac, whereafter on 7.4.2004 at 7.00 P.M. , the informant, Jitendra Prasad and Kashi Prasad went with One lac to Dhawapul but the accused persons could not be contacted, as patrolling party was found patrolling near Dhawapul. On the following day i.e. 8.4.2004, accused persons again gave ransom call and asked that the ransom amount of One lac be paid at Dhawapul at 1.00 P.M. On 8.4.2004 at about 1.00 P.M., the informant, Jitendra Prasad and Kashi Prasad went to Dhawapul on a motorcycle with the ransom amount. Having parked the motorcycle by the side of the bridge, the informant and his brothers proceeded and identified six accused persons, namely, Chhotan Khan, Pradeep Kumar, Arbind Kumar, Sonu Kumar, Gyani Prasad and Nanhkut Chaudhary @ Shyamji Chaudhary. Chhotan Khan asked the informant to come alone, no sooner the informant reached near the accused persons, Chhotan Khan came ahead and displayed the T-shirt of Ujjawal Kumar, informant having identified the T-shirt of Ujjawal Kumar, took the T-shirt and handed over bag containing the ransom amount of One lac to Chhotan Khan, who told the informant that his son would reach home within 2 hours. The six accused persons further told the informant that as he has identified them not to disclose their identity, failing which they shall not spare anyone in his house even to light the lamp. The informant and others thereafter came back and waited for 2-3 days for Ujjawal to arrive and noticed that in the meanwhile, Surendra Prasad, Salekh Kumar, Gautam Kumar, Rajendra Prasad were keeping a close watch on the activities of the informant. When Ujjawal Kumar did not return, on 12.4.2004, the informant informed the Officer-in-charge, Nasariganj police station about the names of the aforesaid six accused persons, namely, Chhotan Khan, Arbind Kumar, Pradeep Kumar, Sonu Kumar, Gyani Prasad and Nanhkut Chaudhary, who had taken the ransom amount on 8.4.2004. The accused persons were apprehended on 27.4.2004 and the informant saw them sitting in the Varanda of the police station. Statement of Chhotan Khan was recorded by the Officer-in-charge, who made his statement fearlessly and also signed beneath his statement, Ext. 1, which was also perused/ identified by the informant. Chhotan Khan stated in his statement that on the instruction of Chandan, he along with Arbind Kumar and Nanhkut Chaudhary had taken Ujjawal to Dehri on the banks of river Sone and killed him by pressing his throat with coconut rope, the dead body has been buried beneath the watercress. Officer-in-charge having recorded the confession of Chhotan Khan, went to Dehri along with Chhotan Khan, Pradeep Kumar, Arbind Kumar and Nanhkut Chaudhary. The informant and Bharat Prasad also accompanied them. At Dehri near the bank of Sone river, after removing watercress, dead body of Ujjawal was dug out. The carcass was intact from skull to feet, at the joints flesh was also visible. The Informant identified the carcass as that of Ujjawal since Ujjawal had dent mark over his forehead and overlapping incisor (front) teeth. Coconut rope was also found and seized with the carcass. The Officer-in-charge, Sushma Kumari drew up recovery memo in front of the informant and Bharat Prasad, who signed as witnesses over recovery/ seizure memo, Ext.4. After recovery of the carcass, officer-in-charge and others returned to the police station. The informant thereafter produced before the officer-in-charge the T-shirt, which he had exchanged from Chhotan Khan on payment of ransom money in presence of witness Ajay Kumar Gupta and Ramji Prasad. Officer-in-charge drew up seizure memo of the T- shirt over which the informant, Ajay Kumar Gupta and Ramji Prasad put their signature, the seizure memo is Ext. 4/A. Nanhkut Chaudhary, Pradeep Kumar and Arbind Kumar also recorded their confessional statement in presence of the informant, which is in the handwriting of the Officer-in-charge, Sushma Kumari and signed by the respective accused persons and marked as Exts. 5, 5/A and 5/B. In paragraph 13 of the chief, the informant has indicated that land dispute is the cause of the occurrence, as 15-20 days earlier at the time of Holi festival, mud clod and stones were thrown at his house by the family members of Surnedra Prasad and Rajendra Prasad, which led to altercation with his mother, the accused persons threatened them of dire consequences. Informant had also made telephone call and was also threatened. In paragraph 14, the informant identified the rope, which was recovered from the bank of river Sone in his presence and the rope was marked as material Ext.I. In paragraph 15, the informant identified the T-shirt of Ujjawal, which was given to him by Chhotan Khan at the time of payment of ransom amount and produced by the informant before the officer-in-charge. The T-shirt was marked as material Ext.II. In paragraph 16, the witness identified all the accused persons present in dock by their name and further claimed that he can identify those who are represented through counsel. In paragraph 17, the informant claimed that witness, Raju Kumar has been gained over. The witness has been cross-examined at length, which is evident from the contents of paragraph nos. 18 to 65 of his cross-examination and perusal thereof indicates that the witness has stood the test of cross-examination. In paragraph 18, he has stated that Ujjawal on the date of occurrence was 12-13 years old and his height was 4-4½ feet. In paragraph 19, he has clarified that the place from where the dead body was recovered, was not a cremation ground and no other dead body was found cremated there. In paragraph 21, he has clarified that on 12.4.2004, he made verbal statement before the Officer-in-charge. In paragraph 22, he has further clarified that he did not hand over the T-shirt to the Officer- in-charge until recovery of the carcass and denied the suggestion that he has handed over any other T-shirt of Ujjawal from his house. In paragraph 23, he clarified that while giving description of the physical appearance of Ujjawal, he had informed the Officer-in-charge that Ujjawal had overlapping teeth and there was fracture/ dent mark over his forehead. In the same paragraph, he, however, states that he does not remember whether such description of Ujjawal was recorded by him before the Magistrate. In paragraph 24, he states that he had signed the fard-e-beyan after having perused the same and having found the contents correct. In paragraph 25, he states that he recorded his statement before the Magistrate on 29.4.2004 and the third statement before the Officer-in-charge on 28.4.2004, which was written by the Officer-in-charge. In paragraph 26, he states that before the Magistrate, he had stated that having received information about the occurrence, he reached his home on 23.3.2004 in the evening and spoke to mother, father and Sunita , wife of his younger brother and learnt about the occurrence from his mother that on 21.3.2004 at about 4.00 P.M. in the evening, Ujjawal Kumar and Raju Kumar were playing in front of the house in the vacant land and Chandan Kumar, Gautan, Gyani, Rajendra Prasad, Salekh, Sonu and Surendra were at their residence. In the same paragraph, he claims to have stated before the learned Magistrate that his mother had asked Ujjawal to come inside the house and resume studies but Ujjawal continued playing whereafter mother of the informant went inside the house to light the lamp and his father went to ease himself. He further claimed to have stated before the Magistrate that his mother told him that when she came after lighting the lamp, she did not find Ujjawal. He further claimed that he had stated before the Magistrate that his mother had gone to search for Ujjawal when Raju told her that he had seen Chandan holding the hand of Ujjawal and taking him towards the lane along with one another person. In paragraph 27, informant stated that he does not remember whether he had stated before the Magistrate that his mother informed him that after having searched Ujjawal when she came back to her house, Sunita Devi, wife of the younger brother of the informant informed the mother of the informant that while she was picking up dried clothes from the roof, she had seen Chandan holding the hand of Ujjawal and going along with him followed by Surendra, Salekh, Gyani etc. In the same paragraph, he claims to have stated the aforesaid facts before the police in his further statement. In the same paragraph, he further states that he does not remember whether he had stated before the Magistrate about non-cooperation of Rajendra, Surendra Prasad and their family members during the search and enquiry and that they became angry when queries were made about the whereabouts of Ujjawal from them. In paragraph 28, he claimed that after 7- 8 days of the occurrence, I.D. Caller was installed in the telephone at his residence, but he could neither note the number nor obtained print out from the telephone department. The police authorities may have taken out such print out. In paragraph 29, he further stated that he had not noted the number wherefrom ransom call for payment of One lac was made. In paragraph 30, he stated that at the time of payment of ransom amount at Dhawapul, two persons had accompanied him and denied the suggestion that he was accompanied by three. He further stated in the same paragraph that before the Magistrate, he had stated that on the second day he received telephone call instructing him to come at Dhawapul with ransom money at 1.00 P.M. On 7.4.2004 also he had gone to Dhawapul with Jitendra Prasad and Kashi Prasad with One lac. In the same paragraph, he, however, clarifies that he does not remember whether he had stated before the Magistrate that he had gone with Jitendra and Kashi Prasad on a motorcycle. In paragraph 31, he has stated that when he reached Dhawapul, he saw six accused persons, who had covered their faces with towel. In paragraph 32, he denied the suggestion that he told the Officer-in-charge that from the gait and gesture of the six accused persons, it appeared to him that he had seen them before. In paragraph 33, the informant accepted that he stated before the learned Magistrate that six accused persons having taken the ransom amount gave him the T-shirt as also warned him not to disclose their identity since he had identified them failing which they shall not spare anyone in his house to even light the lamp. In the same paragraph, the informant accepted that he had spoken before the Magistrate that even after receipt of the ransom amount when his son did not return then on 12.4.2004, he informed the Officer-in-charge the name of the six accused persons, who had taken the ransom amount of One lac. In the same paragraph, the informant further stated that he had stated before the Magistrate that his son could not be traced, but his carcass was traced near Dehri bridge beneath the watercress. In the same paragraph, he stated that he does not remember whether he had informed the Magistrate that the confessional statement of Chhotan Khan was recorded by the Officer-in-charge in his presence and that Chhotan Khan was recording his statement fearlessly and that he signed the statement. In the same paragraph, he further claimed that before the Magistrate, he had stated that Chhotan Khan had confessed that as per the instruction of Chandan, he along with Arbind Kumar and Nanhkut had taken Ujjawal to Dehri near Sone river and killed him by pressing his throat with coconut rope and buried his dead body beneath the watercress. He further accepted in the same paragraph that before the Magistrate, he stated that along with Officer-in-charge at about 12.00 Noon he, Bharat Prasad and the accused persons namely, Chhotan Khan, Pradeep Kumar, Arbind Kumar and Nanhkut Chaudhary had gone to Dehri near the bank of Sone river where the carcass was dug out by the four accused persons from beneath the watercress. In paragraph 34, he accepted that having come from Orissa, he did not ask from his father whether information about the occurrence has been lodged before the police. In paragraph 35, he claimed that he had not stated before the Officer-in-charge that he had any land dispute with Surendra Prasad. He further denied the suggestion that he wanted Surendra Prasad and his sons to become witness in this case, but when they did not agree to become the witness, they have also been falsely implicated. In paragraph 36, he accepted that he had not informed the Dy.S.P., Bikramganj about the fact that he had gone to Dhawapul on 7.4.2004 and 8.4.2004 for payment of ransom amount. He has further stated that on 7.4.2004, he remained near Dhawalpul for about 1½ hours but did not speak to the members of the patrolling party. In paragraph 37, he accepted that he did not give any information about the happenings of 7.4.2004 and 8.4.2004 to the S.P. In the same paragraph, he accepted that he did not give the number of the motorcycle on which he had gone to Dhawapul to the police. In paragraph 38, he accepted that when he reached Nasariganj from Orissa, his uncle Bharat Prasad was at his home. He further claimed that at the residence of his uncle at Dawa, telephone facility is available, but such facility is not available at his residence in Asansol and he was not informed about the occurrence telephonically. The witness thereafter clarified that when he reached home from Orissa his uncle was not present at his house, but at that time his mother, father and aunt Saraswati Devi of Amiyawar and Dr. Alakh Prasad and the wife of his younger brother and daughter were available. In paragraph 39, he accepted that he learnt about the occurrence from his mother, father and others of the locality. In the same evening having reached his home, he had sought information from Rajendra Prasad, Surnedra Prasad and from their family members as also from Raju. In paragraph 40, he accepted that until 23.3.2004, Nasariganj police did not come to his house. In paragraph 41, he accepted that accused Arbind and Pradeep are resident of Nasariganj and they are known to the informant from before as also they are not on inimical terms with him, the informant. In paragraph 42, he accepted that he had arranged ransom amount by taking loan from his relatives. In the same paragraph, he accepted that at the time of accepting ransom amount, accused persons had covered their face partially. In paragraph 43, he has accepted that the T-shirt was old and clarified that the ransom money was arranged from his three brother-in-law, Dev Kumar, Dilip Kumar and Amrendra Prasad Twenty thousand each, Ten thousand from his two uncles Bharat Prasad and Shivnath Prasad and Twenty thousand was with him. In paragraph 44, he accepted that the confessional statement of Chhotan Khan was recorded on 27.4.2004 in his presence and on that day he remained at the police station from 8.30 in the morning till 9.00 O clock in the evening, in between for five minutes he had come to his house at 3.30 P.M., but came back by 3.45- 3.50 P.M. In the same paragraph, he accepts that at the time of recording of confessional statement of Chhotan Khan, other accused persons and 50- 60 villagers, including Anandi Prasad, Anil Kumar, Ajay Kumar Gupta, Ramji Prasad, Gopal Prasad and others were also present. In paragraph 45, he states that his relatives had come to his house one day before his arrival, except, his aunt Saraswati Devi, who had come on 21st itself. In paragraph 46, he states that Bharat Prasad come to his house 5-6 days his arrival, again said that he came after 3 days on 27.3.2004 and left after 5.5.2004. In paragraph 47, he states that besides him, none of his brothers were examined before the Magistrate. His statement recorded before the Magistrate was read by him and having found the statement correctly recorded, he signed the same Ext.A. In paragraph 48, he denied the suggestion that he had recorded his evidence on the basis of hearsay. In paragraph 49, he stated that the carcass was dug out from beneath the watercress in his presence by four accused persons, namely, Chhotan Khan, Arbind, Pradeep and Nanhkut. While the carcass was being dug out, the informant was standing 2-3 steps east of the place where the accused persons were digging. The carcass was intact. The Officer-in-charge was also standing just 2 steps away from the informant while the carcass was being dug out. In the same paragraph, the informant has given detailed description/ topography of the place from where the carcass was dug out. In paragraph 51, he states that having learnt about the occurrence, he did not visit the house of Nanhkut, although he and his father were known to him from before and denied the suggestion that he has been falsely implicated on account of enmity. In paragraph 52, he accepts that Rajendra and his sons, Gautam and Gyani are his close agnates with whom he had land dispute, which was decided in their favour by the village arbitrators and the members of the prosecution party had executed the deed of relinquishment in their favour and thereafter they are on visiting/ dining terms with each other. In October- November, 2003, informant had gone along with Rajendra to search bride groom for his daughter. In paragraph 54, he has stated that his relationship with others of his caste residing in the locality is cordial. In paragraph 55, he stated that at the time of recording his fard-e-beyan, his family members, including his mother were present and before recording the fard-e-beyan, he had taken information about the occurrence from Raju Kumar and other villagers, including his mother. In the same paragraph, he, however, accepted that he does not remember whether Rajendra, Gautam and Gyani have been named as suspect in the fard- e-beyan. He further states in the same paragraph that the Officer-in-charge had read over the fard-e-beyan before he put his signature over the same. In paragraph 56, he accepts to have passed Intermediate and further stated that the day on which he expressed his suspicion against Rajendra, Gautam and Gyani, police went to their house, but they were not arrested. Chandan was arrested on 24.3.2004. He further states that he never informed the police that Rajendra has come home and he be arrested. In paragraph 57, he states that he had informed the police at the time of lodging the fard-e-beyan about the description of the clothes which Ujjawal was wearing at the time of his disappearance and further accepted that he handed over the T-shirt of Ujjawal to the Officer-in-charge after the arrest of the accused persons. In paragraph 58, he accepted that he did not inform the police about the threat extended at the time of Holi festival. Such information, however, was stated in the fard- e-beyan. In paragraph 59, he denied the suggestion that Rajendra, Gyani and Gautam have been falsely implicated. In paragraph 61, the informant states that on 8.4.2004, he understood that it was Chhotan Khan, who was involved in the occurrence, as he had taken the ransom amount. Officer- in-charge arrested Chhotan Khan on 27.4.2004, the informant, however, is not aware about the time of arrest. On 27.4.2004 also the informant informed the Officer-in- charge that Chhotan Khan had accepted the ransom amount. He further claimed to have signed the recovery/ seizure list prepared on that day. In paragraph 62, the informant stated that the ransom amount was paid at the Dhawapul, 20 steps south and further gave detailed topography of the place in the same paragraph. In paragraph 63, he states that at the time of arrest of Chhotan Khan 2000/- was recovered from his pocket. In the same paragraph, he also states that the length of the carcass recovered was 4 ½ feet. In paragraph 64, the informant stated that there was no flesh over the skull of the carcass recovered, but there was dent/ fracture mark over the forehead, as 5-6 years earlier, there was injury over the forehead of Ujjawal which was treated in the clinic of Dr. A.K. Khan, but he does not have any prescription of Dr. Khan. In paragraph 65, the informant denied the suggestion that he had not paid ransom amount to Chhotan Khan and that Chhotan Khan had not recorded any confessional statement on the basis of which carcass was recovered. He further denied the suggestion that carcass recovered is not of his son and that he has deposed falsely.

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.

14. Sri Kanhaiya Prasad Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the four appellants, namely, Chandan Kumar, Chhotan Khan, Gyani Prasad and Sonu Kumar submitted that Ujjawal Kumar, son of the informant, while playing in front of his house, disappeared on 21.3.2004 at about 6 P.M., information to that effect was telephonically conveyed to the informant who was at Raigarh in Orissa by his father, Dhrub Prasad Sah the same evening that it appeared that somebody has taken away Ujjawal, Such fact is stated in the fard-e-beyan dated 24.3.2004, although in the earliest information about the occurrence submitted to the Officer-in-charge, Nasariganj P.S. dated 22.3.2004 by the grandfather of the victim recorded as station diary entry No. 400 dated 22.3.2004, it has been stated that Ujjawal Kumar, aged about 11 years, height 4 ½ feet, complexion fair, student of Class VII, wearing white shirt and paint, who speaks Hindi, has disappeared while playing in front of his house on 21.3.2004 at 6.30 P.M. and request was made to do the needful. With reference to the contents of the aforesaid station diary entry, fard-e-beyan, the evidence of P.W.3, Mandodari Devi, P.W.10 Sunita Devi, wife of the younger brother of the informant, P.W.4, Kashi Prasad Gupta, brother of the informant P.W.7, informant, Jai Prakash Gupta and P.W.5, Jitendra Prasad, cousin brother of the informant, it is submitted that none except, Sunita Devi, P.W.10 has seen the actual disappearance of the victim and she cannot be relied upon as she was never examined in support of the occurrence before the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C., although she was available in the house at the time of occurrence and is said to have seen Chandan holding the hand of Ujjawal and taking him towards the lane and the two were being followed by Rajendra, Gautam, Gyani, Surendra, Salekh and Sonu, soon thereafter and she is said to have informed the aforesaid fact to her mother-in-law, father-in-law as also the informant and his brothers after they returned from Raigarh in Orissa, but such fact is not mentioned either in the station diary entry or in the fard-e- beyan though the station diary was recorded on 22nd and fard-e-beyan was recorded on 24th of March 2004. The mother-in-law, P.W.3 also accepts in court that the aforesaid information was divulged by Sunita Devi soon after the occurrence when she returned inside the house after searching for Ujjawal in the lane. In the circumstances, the story propounded by the prosecution does not appear to be true.

21. Sri Abhay Kumar Singh No.2 appearing for the appellant, Arbind Kumar, besides adopting the submission of Sri Kanhaiya Prasad Singh, further submitted that Ujjawal disappeared on 21.3.2004 at about 6.00 P.M., but information to that effect was given to the Officer-in-charge, Nasariganj P.S. by the grandfather of the victim, Sri Dhrub Prasad Sah on 22.3.2004 and the fard-e-beyan about the occurrence was lodged on 24.3.2004 at 7.00 A.M., although the father of the victim had arrived from Raigarh in Orissa on 23.3.2004 in between 7.30-8.00 P.M. and thus considerable delay in informing the police station as also in lodging the fard-e-beyan has been made by the prosecution party, which has not been explained and such delay, if not explained, should persuade this Court to acquit the appellants on the ground of delay in informing the police station about the occurrence as also in lodging the fard-e- beyan.