Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1831 OF 2011

RANJEET KUMAR RAM @ RANJEET KUMAR DAS        ..Appellant

Versus

STATE OF BIHAR                   ..Respondent WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1820-1821 OF 2013

PANDIT @ SANJAY MAHTO ETC.               ..Appellants Versus

STATE OF BIHAR                     ..Respondent AND

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1817 Of 2013

CHINTOO SINGH                                                    ..Appellant Versus

STATE OF BIHAR              ..Respondent

J U D G M E N T

R. BANUMATHI, J  .

These  appeals  are  directed  against  the  judgment

dated  11.10.2010  passed  by  the  Patna  High  Court  in

Criminal  Appeals  (DB)  No.268/2008,  357/2008,  451/2008,

No.156/2008  and  Death  Reference  No.6/2008,  in  and  by

1

Page 2

which,  the  High  Court  dismissed  the  appeals  filed  by  the

accused persons confirming the verdict of  conviction on the

charge of murder of five years old boy Vicky and dismissed the

death reference by converting the death sentence of Chintoo

Singh (A-5) into life imprisonment.

2. On  27.02.2006,  Sunil  Kumar  Singh-PW8,  a

vegetable vendor in Paswan Chowk, lodged a complaint stating

that  his  son Vicky  aged five  years  was  playing  near  PW8’s

vegetable shop and Rubi Kumari aged seven years sister of the

victim boy Vicky was also playing with him.  At that time two

unknown persons [later identified as Chintoo Singh (A-5) and

Birendra Bhagat (A-3)] offered chocolates to Vicky and other

children and took away Vicky saying that they would come

back and drop the boy;  but the boy Vicky did not come back.

On the above complaint on 28.02.2006, a case was registered

as P.S. Case No.105/2006 at Hazipur Town (Industrial Area),

Police  Station,  Vaishali.   Inspite  of  search,  the  missing boy

could not be traced.  After 5-6 days passed, Ranjeet Kumar

Ram (A-1) and Sanjay (A-4), who were also vegetable vendors

in the same market i.e. at Paswan Chowk, told PW8 that his

son would come back if  he would pay money.  Nearly after

2

Page 3

three months of the incident, on 23.06.2006, PW8 received a

phone call  and the kidnappers demanded a ransom of  four

lakh  rupees  for  return  of  his  son;  but  PW8  expressed  his

helplessness  to  meet  the  demand,  and  the  demand  was

reduced  to  two  lakh  rupees.  Another  telephone  call  was

received by PW8 on 1.07.2006 and the final amount of ransom

was  fixed  for  Rs.1,05,000/-.  On  3.07.2006,  PW8  received

another call from the kidnappers and PW8 informed them that

he has arranged the ransom money and PW8 was asked to

bring the money at New Gandak Bridge ahead of Line Hotel of

Bachcha  Babu  at  Sonepur.  When  PW8  expressed  fear  in

coming  alone  with  money,  he  was  instructed  by  the

kidnappers  to  come  with  his  neighbours  Ranjeet  Kumar

Ram (A-1) and Sanjay (A-4).

3. In  order  to  pay  the  ransom  money,  PW8  had

withdrawn Rs.80,000/- from his Savings Bank account with

Bank of India at Rajendra Chowk, Hazipur and PW-8 arranged

balance money from his own savings and borrowings from his

father-in-law.  On  4.07.2006,  PW8  wrapped  the  ransom

amount in a plastic bag and kept it in a gunny bag under the

carrier of his cycle and PW8 accompanied by Ranjeet Kumar

3

Page 4

Ram (A-1) and Sanjay (A-4) and Sanjeet (A-2) proceeded to the

place as instructed by the kidnappers.  When they reached the

New Gandak Bridge, Sanjeet (A-2) got down from PW8’s cycle

and went inside a hut on the left side of the road and PW8

followed him.  At that time two persons came out and pulled

away the money from the carrier of PW8’s cycle.  Sanjeet (A-2)

informed PW8 that his brother-in-law-Birendra Bhagat  (A-3)

lives in that hut and PW8 was informed that his son would be

returned by evening.  Even after payment of the money, the

boy was not returned.  To inquire about the boy,  PW8 went to

the  hut  and  learnt  from  the  local  people  that  Birendra

Bhagat (A-3) is a criminal and the other person was identified

as  Chintoo  Singh  (A-5).  On  16.08.2006,  PW8  informed  the

investigating officer-Reeta Kumari  (PW12),  the names of  the

accused persons and also about the demand and payment of

money to the kidnappers.

4.  Investigating Officer  (PW-12) conducted a raid at

Sonepur and arrested Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1) and Sanjeet

(A-2) and recorded their statement.  Based on the statement of

Ranjeet  Kumar  Ram  (A-1),  investigating  officer  recovered  a

currency note of five hundred rupee containing the name of

4

Page 5

Sunil  Kumar  Singh-PW8,  written  in  green  ink  in  the

handwriting  of  PW8,  from  the  house  of  Ranjeet  Kumar

Ram(A-1),  which  is  recorded  in  the  seizure  list  (Ex.18).

Thereafter,  the  accused  persons  Sanjay  (A-4),  Birendra

Bhagat (A-3) and Chintoo Singh (A-5) were also arrested and

their statements were recorded. Investigating Officer-PW12, on

the basis  of  statements went to Fakuli  Out-Post  and learnt

about recovery of dead body of a boy aged 4-5 years near the

culvert of Bhagwanpur village wherein (Fakuli OP) P.S. Case

No.128/06 dated 22.04.2006 under Sections 302, 201 and 34

IPC  was  registered.  PW12  obtained  from  Fakuli  police  the

seizure  list  relating  to  recovery  of  vest  and  half  pant  of

deceased  boy  and  his  photograph.  From  the  photograph

shown to PW8, he identified the dead body of child as well as

clothes,  as  that  of  Vicky.  After  the  completion  of  the

investigation, PW-12 filed the chargesheet against five accused

under Sections 364A, 302/34, 120B and 201 IPC.   

5. To bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution

has  examined  fourteen  witnesses  and  exhibited  documents

and  material  objects.  When  questioned  under  Section  313

Cr.P.C.,  the  accused  denied  incriminating  evidence  and

5

Page 6

circumstances put against them.  Defence has examined seven

defence witnesses.

6. Vide  judgment  dated  24/28.01.2008,  the  First

Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hazipur convicted the

accused Chintoo Singh (A-5) and Birendra Bhagat (A-3) under

Section 364A IPC and sentenced  them to  undergo  rigorous

imprisonment  for  life  with  fine  of  Rs.10,000/-.  For  his

conviction  under  Sections  302/34 IPC,  Chintoo  Singh (A-5)

was awarded death sentence.  Sanjeet (A-2), Ranjeet Kumar

Ram  (A-1)  and  Sanjay  (A-4)  were  convicted  under  Section

364A/120B  IPC  and  were  sentenced  to  undergo  rigorous

imprisonment  for  life  and  were  imposed  a  fine  of  rupees

Rs.10,000/-  each  with  default  clause.  Further,  Ranjeet

Kumar  Ram  (A-1),  Sanjay  (A-4)  and  Birendra  Bhagat  (A-3)

were convicted under Section 302/34 IPC and were sentenced

to  undergo  rigorous  imprisonment  for  life  with  a  fine  of

Rs.10,000/- each with default clause.  The sentences imposed

on  Birendra  Bhagat  (A-3),  Ranjeet  Kumar  Ram  (A-1)  and

Sanjay (A-4) were ordered to run concurrently.   

7. Being  aggrieved  by  the  verdict  of  conviction,

accused  filed  Criminal  Appeals  No.  268/2008,  357/2008,

6

Page 7

451/2008  and  156/2008  in  the  High  Court  of  Patna.  For

confirmation of death sentence awarded to Chintoo Singh(A-5),

State filed Death Reference Case No.6/2008.  The High Court

vide  common  impugned  judgment  dated  11.10.2010,

dismissed  the  appeals  filed  by  the  accused  persons  and

thereby  confirmed  the  conviction  and  sentence  imposed  on

accused A-1, A-3 to A-5.  The High Court converted the death

sentence awarded to Chintoo Singh (A-5) as life imprisonment.

Accepting the defence plea of  alibi, the High Court acquitted

2nd accused–Sanjeet in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.249/2008.  In

these appeals, appellants assail the correctness of the verdict

of the conviction and sentence imposed on them.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that

Rubi Kumari (PW2) aged seven years, daughter of PW8, the

key witness has not implicated Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1) and

in her statement she has identified only Birendra Bhagat (A-3)

and PW2 being a child witness her sole testimony cannot form

the basis for conviction.  It was submitted that Sunil Kumar

Singh  (PW8)  on  his  own  has  requested  Ranjeet  Kumar

Ram(A-1)  and  Sanjay  (A-4)  to  accompany  him  to  pay  the

alleged  ransom  and  merely  because  A-1,  A-2  and  A-4

7

Page 8

accompanied PW8, they are being falsely implicated.  Learned

counsel  for  Chintoo  Singh  (A-5)  submitted  that  in  the  test

identification  parade,  PW2  has  not  identified  Chintoo

Singh (A-5) and her identification of A-5 in the open court is

unreliable and without proper appreciation of the flaws in the

prosecution  case,  courts  below  erred  in  convicting  the

accused.

9. Per  contra,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the

respondent-State  contended  that  the  sole  eye-witness-Rubi

Kumari  (PW2)  has  satisfactorily  identified  accused-Birendra

Bhagat (A-3)  in the test identification parade and while she

was examined in the court she has identified Chintoo Singh

(A-5).   It  was submitted that  PW8 has clearly deposed that

Ranjeet  Kumar  Ram (A-1),  Sanjay  (A-4)  in  conspiracy  with

Birendra Bhagat (A-3),  Chintoo Singh (A-5),  induced him to

pay ransom money, even when no such demand was made,

which clearly shows their involvement in the commission of

the offence.  It was submitted that the kidnappers asked PW8

to bring Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1), Sanjay (A-4) and that they

accompanied  PW8  to  pay  the  money  which  proves  the

complicity of  accused Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1) and Sanjay

8

Page 9

(A-4)  in  the  commission  of  the  offence  and  upon  proper

appreciation  of  evidence,  courts  below rightly  convicted  the

appellants for the offence under Sections 302/34, 364A, 120B

and  201  IPC  and  the  concurrent  findings  recorded  by  the

courts below warrant no interference.

10. We  have  considered  the  rival  contentions  and

perused  the  impugned  judgment,  evidence  and  material  on

record.

11. Sunil Kumar Singh (PW8) and his wife Nilam Devi

(PW6)  are  vegetable  vendors  in  Paswan  Chowk  Market,

Hazipur.  Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1) and Sanjeet (A-2) [since

acquitted] are brothers who are also vegetable vendors in the

same market having shop situated nearby the shop of PW8

and  Birendra  Bhagat  (A-3)  is  their  brother-in-law.  In  her

evidence,  PW6  stated  that  first  accused  and  his  brother

Sanjeet  were  jealous  of  them  as  PW8  had  good  business.

Though jealousy is suggested as a motive, but it appears that

the commission of murder of victim boy Vicky is mainly due to

kidnapping for ransom.   

12. Key witness PW2-Rubi Kumari is aged seven years

and is the sister of the deceased boy Vicky.   PW2 deposed that

9

Page 10

on  the  date  of  incident  i.e.  27.02.2006,  PW2  was  playing

around the place where PW8 was selling the vegetables. PW2

stated  that  two  persons  came  on  a  motor  cycle  and  gave

chocolate to the children including PW8’s son Vicky and made

Vicky to sit on the tank of the motor cycle and took him away.

PW2 stated that the man who took her brother-Vicky told that

he would come back and drop her brother. Rubi Kumari (PW2)

identified Birendra Bhagat (A-3) during the test identification

parade and in the court she identified Chintoo Singh (A-5) as

the person who offered chocolate to her and to her brother and

took him away.  Inspite of searching cross-examination, PW2

remained consistent throughout her cross-examination.

13.  On behalf of Chintoo Singh (A-5), it was contended

that PW2’s testimony is not reliable as she has not identified

Chintoo Singh during the test identification parade and that

PW2’s identification of Chintoo Singh (A-5) in the court was

not reliable.  Identification of the accused by the witness soon

after  the  former’s  arrest  is  of  course  important  because  it

lends  assurance  to  the  prosecution,  in  addition  to

corroboration  of  the  evidence  of  the  witnesses.  As  noticed

earlier, in the open court during the trial, Rubi Kumari (PW2)

10

Page 11

identified Chintoo Singh (A-5) and she has not identified him

in  the  test  identification  parade  conducted  in  the  prison.

Ordinarily,  courts  do  not  give  much  credence  to  the

identification  made  in  the  court  for  the  first  time;  but  the

identification  of  the  accused  for  the  first  time  in  court  is

permissible in law.   But the said principle has to be applied in

the facts  and circumstances of  each case.   While PW2 was

examined in the court, trial court which had the opportunity

of seeing and observing demeanour of PW2 found her version

identifying  Chintoo  Singh  (A-5)  trustworthy  and  we  see  no

reason to take a different view.  

14. At the time of occurrence, as well, while deposing in

Court,  Rubi  Kumari  (PW2)  was  aged  only  seven  years.

Evidence of the child witness and its credibility would depend

upon the circumstances of each case.  Only precaution which

the court has to bear in mind while assessing the evidence of a

child  witness  is  that  the  witness  must  be  a  reliable  one.

Before PW2 was examined as a witness in the court during

trial, her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded

by the Judicial Magistrate (PW13).  In his evidence PW13 has

stated  that  he  tested  the  understanding  of  witness  Rubi

11

Page 12

Kumari  (PW2)  and  after  being  satisfied  about  her

understanding,  recorded  her  statement  under  Section  164

Cr.P.C.  When PW2 was examined as a witness in the court

during trial, the trial judge had also put preliminary questions

to the child witness Rubi Kumari (PW2) and satisfied that she

was capable of understanding the questions put to her.  When

the trial court has ascertained the discernment of PW2 and

has formed an opinion that PW2-Rubi Kumari is competent to

testify and then recorded her evidence,  we see no reason to

discredit  PW2’s  testimony.  PW2  though  sole  witness,  by

concurrent  findings  courts  below  found  her  evidence

unassailable and we find no ground to take a different view.

15. On 4.7.2006, PW8 wrapped the ransom amount in a

plastic bag and kept it in a gunny bag under the carrier of his

cycle and accompanied by Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A1), Sanjeet

(A-2) and Sanjay (A-4), PW8 went to pay the ransom amount to

the  kidnappers.  When  they  reached  New  Gandak  Bridge,

accused-Sanjeet (A-2) got down from the cycle and went inside

the hut on the left side of the road and PW8 followed him.  At

that time, two persons came out of the hut and took away the

money from the carrier of PW8’s cycle. In the test identification

12

Page 13

parade,  PW8  identified  Chintoo  Singh  (A-5)  and  Birendra

Bhagat  (A-3)  as the persons who took away ransom money

from  the  carrier  of  his  cycle.  The  evidence  of  PW8  amply

corroborates  the  evidence  of  PW2  as  to  the  complicity  of

Chintoo Singh (A-5) and Birendra Bhagat (A-3) in the offence.   

16. Evidence  of  Rubi  Kumari  (PW2)  coupled  with  the

evidence of  Sunil Kumar Singh (PW8) clearly  establishes that

the accused Chintoo Singh (A-5)  and Birendra Bhagat (A-3)

kidnapped  PW8’s  son  Vicky  and  PW8  informant  paid

Rs.1.05,000/- to them as ransom amount.  On the evidence of

PW2, courts below rightly recorded concurrent findings that

the prosecution has established that deceased boy Vicky was

last seen alive in the company of accused Chintoo Singh (A-5)

and Birendra Bhagat (A-3).  It is for the accused to explain

how and  when they  parted  company  of  the  deceased  child

Vicky.  Absolutely, there is no explanation forthcoming from

the accused which is a strong militating circumstance against

the accused Chintoo Singh (A-5)  and Birendra Bhagat (A-3)

which indicates that they are responsible for the crime.  This

is further fortified by the evidence of PW8 who stated that the

accused Nos.3  and 5  had snatched  the  money kept  in  the

13

Page 14

carrier  of  his  cycle,  when he was near  the hut  of  Birendra

Bhagat (A-3).

17. Based on the statement of Chintoo Singh (A-5)  and

Birendra  Bhagat  (A-3),  investigating  officer-  Reeta  Kumari

(PW12) went  to  Fakuli  O.P. and learnt that the body of a

deceased boy  was recovered on 22.4.2006 beneath the pulia

in between Bhagwanpur-Bahadurpur road  for which  F.I.R. in

(Fakuli  OP)  P.S.  Case  No.128/2006  dated  22.4.2006  under

Sections  302,  201  IPC  read  with  Section  34  IPC  was

registered.  PW12  received  the  clothes  (material  Ext.11),

photographs of the deceased boy and PW8 has identified the

said  clothes  (material  Ext.11)  as  that  of  his  son  and  also

photographs  (Ext.3  &  3/1)  as  of  deceased  boy  Vicky.

Identification of clothes recovered from the body of deceased

boy beneath the  pulia and identification of  the photographs

and knowledge of accused No.3 and as to the place of dead

body is a strong militating circumstance against the accused

Chintoo Singh (A-5) and Birendra Bhagat (A-3).

18. Learned counsel for the accused Chintoo Singh(A-5)

and  Birendra  Bhagat  (A-3)  contended  that  the  alleged

disclosure statement of the accused is hit by Section 25 of the

14

Page 15

Evidence  Act  which  makes  the  disclosure  statement

inadmissible and the statement recorded from the accused did

not lead to disclosure of  any fact  so as to make it admissible

under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and there is nothing to

connect the accused with the dead body of a boy recovered

from beneath the  pulia   in connection with  (Fakuli OP) P.S.

Case No.128/2006.  It was submitted that the link to connect

the accused with the murder of deceased boy Vicky is missing

and  that  the  confession  statement  of  accused  Chintoo

Singh (A-5) and Birendra Bhagat (A-3) recorded by police is

not admissible in evidence which was not kept in view by the

courts below.

19. So far as  the recovery of dead body of boy under

the  culvert  between  Bhagwanpur  and  Bahadarpur  road  is

concerned, as noticed earlier, a F.I.R. was registered in (Fakuli

OP)  P.S. Case No.128/2006 dated 22.4.2006 under Sections

302, 201 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.  Though the statement

recorded from the accused Chintoo Singh (A-5) and Birendra

Bhagat  (A-3) did not lead to any recovery as admissible under

Section  27  of  the  Evidence  Act,  their  statement  led  to  the

disclosure of the details of the dead body and registration of

15

Page 16

F.I.R. in (Fakuli OP) P.S. Case No.128/2006. If no statement

was  recorded  from the  accused,  place  of  the  dead  body  of

deceased boy would have remained unknown.   

20. So  far  as  the  contention  regarding  the

inadmissibility  of  the  statement  recorded  from the  accused

Chintoo Singh (A-5) and Birendra Bhagat (A-3), of course, the

statement  did  not  lead  to  the  disclosure  of  any  fact  as

admissible  under  Section  27  of  the  Evidence  Act.   Ideally

based  on  the  statement  recorded  from  the  accused,  the

investigating  officer  should  have  taken  the  accused  to  the

alleged  place  of  occurrence  which  would  have  led  to  the

disclosure of place of occurrence and omission to do so, is only

a lapse in the investigation.  Even if it is accepted that there

was  deficiency  in  investigation  that  cannot  be  a  ground  to

doubt the prosecution version which is otherwise cogent and

credible.

21. It is well settled that in criminal trials even if the

investigation  is  defective,  the  rest  of  the  evidence  must  be

scrutinized independently of the impact of the defects in the

investigation otherwise the criminal trial will plummet to the

level of the investigation.   Criminal trials should not be made

16

Page 17

casualties  for  any  lapses  committed  by  the

investigating  officer.  In  State of M. P. vs. Mansingh & Ors.,

(2003)  10  SCC  414,  it  was  held  that  even  if  there  was

deficiencies in the investigation that cannot be a ground for

discrediting  the  prosecution  version.  The  same  view  was

reiterated in  Sheo Shankar Singh vs.  State of Jharkhand And

Anr., (2011) 3 SCC 654 and C. Muniappan & Ors. vs. State of

Tamil Nadu, (2010) 9 SCC 567.

22.    We  are  not  impressed  with  the  arguments

advanced on behalf of  the accused Chintoo Singh (A-5) and

Birendra  Bhagat  (A-3)  that  there  is  nothing  to  connect  the

accused with the body found under the bridge.  Corpus delecti

in some cases may not be possible to be traced or recovered.

If  the  recovery  of  a  dead  body  is  an  absolute  necessity  to

convict  an  accused,  in  many  cases  the  culprits  would  go

unpunished  as  the  accused  would  manage  to  see  that  the

dead body is destroyed or not recovered.  Any lapse in recovery

of the dead body or missing link qua the dead body will not

enure to the benefit of the accused.  

23. Upon appreciation of evidence of PW2 and PW8, the

courts below recorded cogent and concurrent reasonings that

17

Page 18

Chintoo Singh (A-5) and Birendra Bhagat (A-3), for kidnapping

the  boy  Vicky  for  ransom  and  committed  murder  and  the

conviction of  Chintoo Singh (A-5) and Birendra Bhagat (A-3)

under Sections 364A,  302 and 201 IPC and the sentence  of

imprisonment  imposed on them cannot be interfered with.

24. Conviction  qua  Ranjeet  Kumar  Ram (A-1)  and

Sanjay (A-4): PW6–Nilam Devi and PW8–Sunil Kumar Singh,

mother and father respectively of the deceased boy Vicky are

the vegetable vendors in the Paswan Chowk Market.  Ranjeet

Kumar Ram (A-1) and Sanjay (A-4) were also selling vegetables

in  the  same  market.   In  her  evidence,  PW6  stated  that

Ranjeet  Kumar Ram (A-1)  and Sanjay  (A-4)  were  jealous of

PW6 and PW8 as in their vegetable shops they were having

good  business.  PW8  in  his  evidence  stated  that  he  was

persuaded by Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1) and Sanjay (A-4) to

pay the ransom money and get back his son even when no

such  demand  was  made  by  the  kidnappers  viz.,  Chintoo

Singh (A-5) and Birendra Bhagat (A-3).  After number of phone

calls,  demand of ransom was reduced to Rs.1,05,000/- and

PW8  was  asked  to  deliver  the  amount.  PW8  categorically

stated that when he expressed fear of going alone, kidnappers

18

Page 19

told him over phone to bring his neighbours Ranjeet Kumar

Ram (A-1) and Sanjay (A-4).  PW8 withdrew Rs.80,000/- from

his  Savings  Bank  account  with  Bank  of  India  at  Rajendra

Chowk and Ext.5 is the Savings  Bank passbook of PW8.  PW8

took loan of Rs.20,000/- from his father-in-law Sakal Mahto

and PW8 was already having Rs.5,000/-.  In his evidence, PW8

stated that the amount he arranged was of denomination of

five hundred rupees and in some of the currency notes, he has

signed.  PW8 stated that he wrapped the ransom amount in a

plastic bag and kept in a gunny bag in the carrier of his cycle

and when they reached New Gandak  Bridge, Sanjeet (A-2)  got

down from his cycle and went to the hut on  the left side of the

road and when PW8 followed him, Chintoo Singh (A-5)  and

Birendra Bhagat (A-3) pulled away money kept in the gunny

bag from PW8’s cycle.  Only accused Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1)

and Sanjay (A-4) had the knowledge that the money was kept

in the gunny bag in the carrier of cycle.  From the conduct of

A-5  and  A-3,  it  appeared  as  if  they  were  already  having

knowledge about money being kept in the gunny bag in the

carrier of the cycle of PW8 which only indicates prior meeting

of minds of the accused.   

19

Page 20

25.  Birendra  Bhagat  (A-3)  is  the  brother-in-law  of

Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1).  Had there been no complicity of

Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1) in the commission of the offence, on

knowing  for  the  first  time  that  his  brother-in-law  Birendra

Bhagat (A-3) was involved in the kidnapping, Ranjeet Kumar

Ram (A-1) must have been greatly shocked and he must have

questioned his brother-in-law Birendra Bhagat (A-3) as to why

he  had  committed  such  gruesome  act  of  kidnapping  his

neighbour’s  son?  But  Ranjeet  Kumar  Ram  (A-1)  had  not

reacted to the situation and he remained quiet.  His conduct

in  not  showing  any  reaction  to  his  brother-in-law’s  act  of

kidnapping  of  PW8’s  son,  which is  not  in  consonance  with

natural  human  conduct.  This  conduct  of  first  accused

coupled with the evidence that he has been persuading PW8 to

pay the money to kidnappers to get back his son leads to the

irresistible inference that accused Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1)

shared the common intention with accused Nos.3 and 5 in

kidnapping the child and committing murder.

26. Recovery of five hundred rupee currency note (Ex.1)

from the house of Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1) is yet another link

strengthening  his  complicity  in  the  commission  of  offence.

20

Page 21

Pursuant  to  the  statement  of  accused  Ranjeet  Kumar

Ram  (A-1),  currency  note  of  Rs.500/-  which  contained

signature of PW8-Sunil Kumar Singh in green ink was seized

from  the  house  of  first  accused  under  Ext.1  seizure  list

(Ext.18).   PW4-Raj  Banshi  Devi,  a  neighbour  had  spoken

about the recovery of Ext.1 currency note of Rs.500/- from the

house of accused No.1 and PW8 had identified his signature

on Ext.1 currency note.  Recovery of a part of ransom amount

from the house of Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A1) is a determining

link  completing the chain of circumstantial evidence against

Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1), pointing to his guilt.

27. Defence plea of accused Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1) is

that  some  time  prior  to  the  occurrence,  there  was  an

altercation between him and PW8 and at that time PW8-Sunil

Kumar Singh stated that he would falsely implicate Ranjeet in

a criminal case.  To prove the defence plea, defence witnesses

Baiju Sharma and Budhan Paswan were examined as DWs 4

and 5.  The defence plea that PW8 falsely implicated Ranjeet

Kumar Ram (A-1) and his family members in the offence of

kidnapping  and  murder  of  his  son  defies  logic  and  rightly

rejected by the trial court as well by the High Court.

21

Page 22

28. Direct  evidence  of  common  intention  is  seldom

available.  Such common intention of the accused can only be

inferred from the evidence and circumstances appearing from

proved  facts  of  case.   In  furtherance  of  common intention,

Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1) had been persuading PW8 to pay

the ransom amount even before there was no such demand

from  the  kidnappers  viz.,  Chintoo  Singh  (A-5),  Birendra

Bhagat (A-3).  Considering the act of Ranjeet Kumar Ram and

the  proved  circumstances,  courts  below  rightly  held  that

Ranjeet Kumar Ram had the common intention of kidnapping

and committing murder of the boy Vicky and the courts below

rightly  convicted  Ranjeet  Kumar  Ram  (A-1)  under  Section

364A IPC and Sections 302/34 IPC.  

29. As far as Sanjay Mahto (A4) is concerned, he is also

a  vegetable  vendor  in  Paswan  Chowk  Market.  Though  the

circumstances  that  he  has  also  persuaded PW8 to  pay  the

ransom amount to kidnappers and also accompanied PW8 to

Sonepur to pay the ransom amount to the kidnappers, Sanjay

might have accompanied PW8 as a bonafide helper.  Neither

any  recovery  was  made  from Sanjay  nor  any  incriminating

evidence is available against him.  So far as  Sanjay  Mahto

22

Page 23

(A-4)  is  concerned,  though  there  may  be  strong  suspicion

about  his  involvement  in  the  commission  of  the  offence,

suspicion however strong it may be, cannot take the place of

proof.   The case  against  Sanjay  (A-4)  is  not  proved beyond

reasonable doubt and his conviction is liable to be set aside.  

30. Criminal Appeals No.1831/2011, 1817/2013 and

1821/2013:  These appeals filed by Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1),

Chintoo Singh (A-5) and Birendra Bhagat (A-3) are dismissed.  

31. Criminal  Appeal  No.1820/2013: Conviction  of

Sanjay  (A-4)  is  set  aside  and this  appeal  is  allowed.  He  is

acquitted of the charges and he is ordered to be set at liberty

forthwith if not required in any case.

…………………..J.                        (T.S. Thakur)   

…………………..J.       (R. Banumathi)   

New Delhi; May  15, 2015

23