Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2803 (JHR)

Jayash Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2018-12-19

H.C.MISHRA, RATNAKER BHENGRA

body2018
JUDGMENT : As all these four appeals arise out of same impugned Judgment, they have been heard together, and are being disposed of by this common Judgment. 2. Heard learned counsels for the appellants and learned counsel for the State in all these appeals. 3. All the appellants are aggrieved by the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 14.11.2006, and Order of sentence dated 23.11.2006, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No.-1, Giridih, in S.T. No. 108 of 2006, whereby, the appellants have been found guilty and convicted for the offence under sections 364-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, all the appellants have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life for the said offence. 4. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the written report given by the victim informant Birendra Kumar Rai, to the police, at the place of his rescue, near village Bansjore, P.S. Bengabad, District Giridih, on 25.6.2005, wherein he has stated that on the same day he was coming from his Shiv Durga Coal Dipot, at Bichkorwa, Chakai, in the District of Jamui, (State of Bihar), to Giridih, on his motorcycle, and at about 5:00 to 5:15 P.M., he had reached in the forest between Bhagabandh and Bansjore, when he saw a white coloured Ambassador car standing ahead, with its bonnet open. When he was crossing the car, 6 to 7 persons armed with pistol apprehended him on the point of pistol, which was kept on his head, and he was pushed into the car and thereafter, the accused persons started driving the car towards Bansjore, forcibly taking him away. They were asking for the ransom of Rs.5,00,000/-, and they were forcing him to get the money from his family members through mobile phone. In the meantime, the informant saw that two persons known to him, namely, Sappu Chowdhary and Mukesh Chowdhary were going on a motorcycle, whereupon he raised the alarm. The accused persons started assaulting him, but those persons who were known to him, went ahead the car on their motorcycle towards Bansjore village, and they also raised alarm there. Thereafter, the villagers of Bansjore village surrounded the car forcing the car to stop. The accused persons fled away towards forest, threatening the villagers on the point of pistols, but one accused, who was driving the car, was apprehended by the villagers. Thereafter, the villagers of Bansjore village surrounded the car forcing the car to stop. The accused persons fled away towards forest, threatening the villagers on the point of pistols, but one accused, who was driving the car, was apprehended by the villagers. Upon being asked, he disclosed his name as Jayash Kumar, and he also disclosed the names of his other accomplices as Ramesh Hambrum, Anil Kumar, Yogendra Modi, Ranjeet Singh, Nirmal Singh, Narayan Singh and Binod Modi. On the basis of written report given by the informant, Bengabad P.S. Case No. 78 of 2005, corresponding to G.R. No. 1175 of 2005, was instituted against the named accused persons, for the offence under Section 364-A of the Indian Penal Code, and investigation was taken up. After investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet against the accused persons. 5. It may be stated that five accused persons, i.e., these appellants and one Surendra Singh faced the trial in this case, and were convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court below. Surendra Singh had also filed appeal in this Court in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.35 of 2007, but during pendency of the appeal, he died and accordingly, his name was deleted from the array of appellants by order dated 13.12.2018. 6. After commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charge was framed against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 364-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, and upon the accuseds' pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, they were put to trial. In course of trial, eleven witnesses were examined by the prosecution, including the I.O. of the case. 7. P.W.-9 Birendra Kumar Rai is the informant of the case, and also victim in the case. This witness has stated that the occurrence had taken place on 25.6.2005, while he was coming from his coal depot at Bichkorwa, to Giridih, on his motorcycle, and when he reached the forest between Bansjore and Bhagabandh, he saw a white coloured Ambassador car standing with its bonnet open, and as soon as he reached near the car, he was apprehended by 6 to 7 persons on the point of pistol, which was put on his head, and he was pushed into the car. Thereafter, the accused persons started assaulting him and asking him to get Rs. 5 lacs from his family members through mobile phone, otherwise they would kill him. Thereafter, the accused persons started assaulting him and asking him to get Rs. 5 lacs from his family members through mobile phone, otherwise they would kill him. They were driving the car towards Bansjore. In the meantime, he saw Sappu Chowdhary and Mukesh Chowdhary going on a motorcycle, whom he was knowing, and he raised the alarm, whereupon also the accused persons started assaulting him. When the car reached near Bansjore village, several villagers were standing on the road and they got the car stopped. The accused persons fled away threatening the villagers with firearms, but one of them was apprehended. The apprehended accused disclosed his name as Jayash Kumar, and he also disclosed the names of his other accomplices as Ramesh Hambrum, Anil Kumar Tanti, Yogendra Modi, Binod Modi, Ranjeet Singh and Narayan Singh. In the meantime, police also arrived there and Jayash Kumar was handed over to the police by the villagers. The police also searched the vehicle from which certain articles were recovered, and the seizure list was prepared, a copy of which was also given to Jayash Kumar. He has stated that the said seizure list was prepared in his presence as also in presence of the witnesses Mukesh Chowdhary and Sappu Chowdhary. This witness again stated that he informed the villagers about the occurrence and he gave the written report to the police at the place of occurrence itself, which was written by him, which he has proved, and the same was as marked as Ext.-2.This witness has further stated that Ramesh Hambrum and Anil Kumar Tanti were also apprehended by the police in the same night, and the accused Surendra Singh and Yogendra Modi were also apprehended later. He has identified all the accused persons in the Court, stating that all of them had taken part in his abduction. This witness was put to extensive cross-examination on behalf of the defence, but there appears to be nothing of much importance, except that this witness has stated that he had identified the accused persons in the Police Station also, when they had been apprehended by the police. This witness was put to extensive cross-examination on behalf of the defence, but there appears to be nothing of much importance, except that this witness has stated that he had identified the accused persons in the Police Station also, when they had been apprehended by the police. His attention was also drawn towards the statements given before the police, whether he had raised alarm saying 'Bachao-Bachao', but this has got no importance in the case, inasmuch as, it is mentioned in the FIR itself, that upon seeing two persons known to him, he had raised the alarm. 8. P.W.-1 Sappu Chowdhary and P.W.-3 Mukesh Chowdhary are the witnesses whom the informant had seen going on a motorcycle, upon which the alarm was raised by him, and they went ahead towards the village and informed the villagers, whereupon the vehicle was stopped. These witnesses have also supported these facts in their evidence, stating that they saw the informant in the captivity of the 7-8 accused persons in the car, and when he raised alarm they went ahead and raised alarm in the village, whereupon the villagers blocked the road and forced the car to stop. Other accused persons managed to flee away, threatening the villagers, but one of them was apprehended, who disclosed his name as Jayash Kumar, and also disclosed the names of his other accomplices. They have also stated that the police reached the place of occurrence, when Jayash Kumar was handed over to the police. The police also searched the car from which certain articles were recovered, and seizure list was prepared. P.W.-1 Sappu Chowdhary had proved the seizure list, which was marked Ext.-1. He has also stated that after about one and half hours, the accused Ramesh Hambrum and Anil Kumar Tanti were also apprehended by the police, and he has identified all the three accused persons in the Court. P.W.-3 Mukesh Chowdhary has only identified the accused Jayash Kumar in the Court. There is nothing of much importance in the cross-examinations of these witnesses. 9. P.W.-2 Shyam Pandit and P.W.-7 Shivlal Manjhi are the hearsay witnesses, who have stated that upon hearing the noise they reached the place of occurrence, where the villagers had apprehended Jayash Kumar. They were informed about the occurrence, and they have identified the accused Jayash Kumar in the Court. 10. 9. P.W.-2 Shyam Pandit and P.W.-7 Shivlal Manjhi are the hearsay witnesses, who have stated that upon hearing the noise they reached the place of occurrence, where the villagers had apprehended Jayash Kumar. They were informed about the occurrence, and they have identified the accused Jayash Kumar in the Court. 10. P.W.-4 Laxman Chowdhary, P.W.-5 Mahabir Mandal, P.W.-6 Dukhan Mandal and P.W.-8 Khublal Mandal are also hearsay witnesses. These witnesses have not identified any accused in the Court. 11. P.W.-10 Rajendra Kumar Dubey was posted as Officer-Incharge of Bengabad Police Station on 25.6.2005. He has stated that there was a telephonic information that someone was abducted on an Ambassador car, and upon that information he along with police party proceeded towards the place of occurrence, and as soon as they reached near the bridge near Bansjore village, they saw a white coloured Ambassador car, which was apprehended by the villagers. The driver of the vehicle, Jayash Kumar and the person abducted Birendra Kumar Rai, were also there. Birendra Kumar Rai informed that he was abducted by the accused persons in the Ambassador car, and while they were taking him towards Bansjore village, he saw a person acquainted to him whereupon he raised the alarm and that person went ahead and with the help of the villagers they stopped the car, and apprehended the accused driving the car, and the other accused persons managed to flee away. Birendra Kumar Rai also gave a written information about the occurrence. The car was also searched from which some articles were recovered and the seizure list was prepared. He has identified the seizure list, which was earlier marked as Ext.-1. He has also identified the written report, which was earlier marked as Ext.-2. This witness has also proved the formal FIR, which was marked as Ext.-3. He has stated that the charge of investigation was handed over by him to S.I. Rajendra Kumar Thakur. In his cross-examination, he has stated that neither he had made any search in connection with this case, nor he had apprehended anyone. 12. P.W.-11 Rajendra Kumar Thakur is the I.O. of the case. This witness has also stated that on 25.06.2005, he was posted as Sub Inspector of police and upon information received at the Police Station, he had accompanied the police party to the place of rescue of the victim informant. 12. P.W.-11 Rajendra Kumar Thakur is the I.O. of the case. This witness has also stated that on 25.06.2005, he was posted as Sub Inspector of police and upon information received at the Police Station, he had accompanied the police party to the place of rescue of the victim informant. On the basis of the written report given at the place of rescue itself, the police case was instituted and he was handed over the charge of investigation. He arrested the accused Jayash Kumar, who was apprehended by the villagers, and he searched the car, from which some articles were recovered and the seizure list was prepared. He recorded the re-statement of the informant and in course of investigation, upon pointing out by Jayash Kumar, he apprehended Ramesh Hambrum and Anil Kumar Tanti from Hariodih, where they were found sleeping. From the possession of Anil Kumar Tanti, he recovered one country made pistol and two live cartridges, and also prepared the seizure list and instituted a separate case under the Arms Act. He has given the details of the place of occurrence. He recorded the confessional statements of the accused persons and he also apprehended Yogendra Modi and Surendra Singh, and recorded their statements also. He has given the criminal antecedents of Ramesh Hambrum, Surendra Singh and Anil Kumar Tanti. After completing the investigation, he submitted the charge sheet in the case. This witness was also put to extensive cross examination, but there is nothing of much importance in his cross-examination, except that he has stated that the informant Birendra Kumar Rai had not given the statement before him that he was shouting 'Bachao-Bachao', which as pointed out earlier, is not at all important. He has also stated that he had not got any T.I Parade held in the case. 13. The statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein they have denied the evidence against them. No evidence was adduced by the defence. On the basis of the evidence on record the appellants were convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court below, for the offence as aforesaid. 14. 13. The statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein they have denied the evidence against them. No evidence was adduced by the defence. On the basis of the evidence on record the appellants were convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court below, for the offence as aforesaid. 14. Learned counsels for the appellants have submitted that the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, inasmuch as, the identification of the accused persons is absolutely doubtful, as it is admitted by the informant P.W. -9 Birendra Kumar Rai, that he had seen the accused persons in the Police Station also. It is submitted by learned counsel that from this admission, it is clear that the accused persons were shown to the informant in the Police Station, and thereafter he has identified the accused persons in the Court. Learned counsels further submitted that there is no specific allegation against any accused to have abducted the informant, or to have demanded the ransom from him, rather this allegation is only omnibus against all the accused. It is also submitted that there was no injury on the informant victim, nor admittedly any money was transferred to the accused persons for his release. Learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that in the facts of this case, no offence is made out under Section 364-A of the Indian Penal Code, against any of the appellants, inasmuch as, there is no allegation that the demand of ransom was actually made to the family members of the victim informant. It is submitted by learned counsels that according to the prosecution case, the informant was asked to make the demand from his family members, which demand was not yet made, and accordingly, the offence under section 364-A of the Indian Penal Code, shall not be made out. In support of this contention, learned counsels placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Netra Pal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in 2001 (4) Crimes 387 , wherein the fact of the case was that a child aged about six years was kidnapped, who was recovered by the police and from the apprehended accused, a latter asking ransom of Rs.50,000/- was recovered from his pocket. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in 2001 (4) Crimes 387 , wherein the fact of the case was that a child aged about six years was kidnapped, who was recovered by the police and from the apprehended accused, a latter asking ransom of Rs.50,000/- was recovered from his pocket. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that since there was recovery of the letter, it should be presumed that the accused had kidnapped the boy for ransom, but since only the intention was not sufficient and the letter was not communicated, the case would be outside the purview of Section 364-A of the Indian Penal Code. The accused was accordingly, convicted and sentence for the offences under sections 363 and 365 of the Indian Penal Code. Placing reliance upon this decision, learned counsel submitted that since in the present case also, the family members of the informant were not communicated the demand, no offence shall be made out under section 364-A of the Indian Penal Code. 15. Apart from the above submissions, learned counsel for the appellant Jayash Kumar has also submitted that this appellant is only the owner and the driver of the car, which he was plying on hire basis, and he has stated in his statement recorded under section 313 of the Cr.P.C., that his car was hired by the other accused persons and on that car they abducted one person, and subsequently, the car was apprehended by the villagers. Learned counsel submitted that there is no recovery of any firearm or any such incriminating article from the car, so as to show that he had any intention to abduct the informant for ransom. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant Yogendra Modi, that he had been identified only by the informant and no other witness. Learned counsels accordingly, submitted that the prosecution has not been able to bring home the charge against the accused appellants, beyond all reasonable doubts, and they ought to have been acquitted by the Trial Court below. 16. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer, submitting that the fact that the informant was abducted for ransom is proved from the evidence of P.W.-9 Birendra Kumar Rai, the informant, himself. 16. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer, submitting that the fact that the informant was abducted for ransom is proved from the evidence of P.W.-9 Birendra Kumar Rai, the informant, himself. He has given the vivid details of the occurrence and since the occurrence had taken place in a lonely place in forest, there could be no other eye witness to the occurrence. It is submitted by learned counsel that the demand of ransom of Rs.5,00,000/-, was also made from the informant himself, who was also assaulted and was under the threat of his death. As such, the offence under Section 364-A of the Indian Penal Code, is clearly made out against all the accused, irrespective of the fact that one of them is only the driver of the vehicle. All these appellants have been identified by the informant in the Court, stating that they had abducted him for ransom, and as such, there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below. 17. Having heard, learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the evidence on record, we find that prosecution case is fully supported by P.W.-9 Birendra Kumar Rai, the informant and the victim himself. He has given the vivid details as to how he was abducted by the accused persons and the demand of Rs.5,00,000/- as ransom was made from him. He was also assaulted and threatened to be killed, if the demand was not met. He was abducted on the point of pistol, which shows that he was under the threat of death. While he was being taken away by the accused persons, by chance he could see two persons known to him, going on a motorcycle, whereupon he raised the alarm and those two persons P.W.-1 Sappu Chowdhary and P.W.-3 Mukesh Chowdhary, went ahead on the motorcycle and raised alarm in the village, and with the help of the villagers, they stopped the vehicle and they could free the informant victim from the captivity of the accused persons. Other accused persons managed to flee away threatening the villagers with firearms but accused Jayash Kumar was apprehended on the spot, and he also named his accomplices. Other accused persons managed to flee away threatening the villagers with firearms but accused Jayash Kumar was apprehended on the spot, and he also named his accomplices. These facts are proved not only by P.W.-9 Birendra Kumar Rai, the informant, rather also by P.W.-1 Sappu Chowdhary and P.W.-3 Mukesh Chowdhary. The other witnesses P.W.-2 Shyam Pandit and P.W.-7 Shivlal Manjhi have also supported the case as hearsay witnesses, and have identified the accused Jayash Kumar in the Court. The facts that the accused Jayash Kumar has named all his accomplices in the crime, and the two co-accused were apprehended by the police upon the information given and pointing out by this accused, clearly go to show that he was also as much involved in the crime, as the other co-accused persons. This inference is also supported by the fact that he had stopped his car in the forest area with the bonnet open, even though there was no breakdown in the car, which also shows that he had knowingly stopped the car in the lonely forest to commit the crime. As such, it is not a simple case of hiring of his vehicle by the co-accused persons as claimed by him. The informant P.W.-9 Birendra Kumar Rai has identified all the accused persons in the Court, stating that they were involved in abducting him for ransom. The fact that he has admitted that he had seen the accused persons in the Police Station also, is not going to dilute the prosecution case in any manner, inasmuch as, these accused persons were identified in the Court stating that they were involved in his abduction for ransom. The facts of Netra Pal's case (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants, are quite different, and are not applicable to the facts of this case, inasmuch as, in that case admittedly no demand for ransom was made and the demand letter was still in the pocket of the accused, which had not seen the light of the day, but in the present case, the demand of ransom of Rs.5,00,000/- was made from the informant himself, and for that he was also assaulted and threatened to be killed. In Netra Pal's case (supra), there was only intention to demand the ransom in the form of a letter, which was not communicated, but in the present case the intention of demanding the ransom was also communicated to the victim. We are of the considered view, that on the basis of the evidence on record, offence under section 364-A of the Indian Penal Code, is clearly made out against all the accused persons and all of them have rightly been convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court below. We find no illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below, worth any interference by this Court. 18. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 14.11.2006, and Order of sentence dated 23.11.2006, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No.-1, Giridih, in S.T. No. 108 of 2006, convicting and sentencing the appellants Jayash Kumar, Yogendra Modi, Anil Kumar Tanti and Ramesh Hambrum, for the offence under sections 364-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, which we hereby, affirm. The appellants Jayash Kumar (in Cr.App. (DB) No. 1687 of 2006), Yogendra Modi (in Cr.App. (DB) No. 35 of 2007) and Ramesh Hambrum (in Cr.App. (DB) No. 344 of 2007), are already in custody, undergoing the sentence passed by the Trial Court below. The appellant Anil Kumar Tanti (in Cr. App. (DB) No. 78 of 2007), is on bail. His bail is hereby, cancelled, and he is directed to surrender in the Court below forthwith, for serving out the sentence passed by the Trial Court below. The Trial Court below is also directed to issue the process forthwith, compelling the surrender/production of the appellant Anil Kumar Tanti, for serving out the sentence. 19. We do not find any merit in all these four appeals, which are accordingly, dismissed. Let the Lower Court Record be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with a copy of this Judgment.