Chattisgarh High Court
Ravi Dada Rao Bansod vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 September, 2025
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
2025:CGHC:47393-DB
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Judgment reserved on : 17-07-2025
Judgment delivered on : 16-09-2025
CRA No. 1585 of 2019
1 - Ravindra Krishna Dewangan Son Of Krishna Dewangan Aged
About 28 Years R/o Prem Nagar, Near Itwari Shitla Mata Mandir,
Nagpur, Police Station Lakadganj, Nagpur (Maharashtra)
2 - Praveen Chandra Shekhar Ghate Son Of Chandra Shekhar Govind
Rao Ghate Aged About 28 Years R/o Beside Gopal Krishna Lodge,
Vadeda Ring Road Nagpur, Police Station Nandanvan, Nagpur
Maharashtra
3 - Sanam Sunil Dhomre Son Of Sunil Dhomre Aged About 22 Years
R/o Nehru Nagar Prajapati Nagar, Bhandara Road, Nagpur, Police
Station Nandanvan, Nagpur Maharashtra.
--- Appellants
In Jail
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Mohan Nagar, Durg,
District Durg Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent
2
CRA No. 1981 of 2019
Ravi Dada Rao Bansod S/o Dada Rao Bansod Aged About 25 Years
R/o Nehru Nagar, Prajapati Nagar, Bhandara Road, Nagpur P.S.
Nandanvan, Nagpur (Maharashtra)
--- Appellant
In Jail
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. P.S. Mohan Nagar, District Durg
Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent
For Appellants : Mr. Shailendra Dubey with Ms. Shivali Dubey and
Mr. Jaydeep Singh Yadav, Advocates.
For Respondent : Ashish Shukla, Addl. A.G.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, JJ
C A V Judgment
Per Rajani Dubey, J
Since both these appeals arise out of the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 1.10.2019 passed by 5th Additional
Sessions Judge, Durg in ST No.7/2016, they are being disposed of by
this common judgment. By the impugned judgment, each of the
appellants stands convicted and sentenced as under:
Conviction Sentence
Under Section 364A/34 of IPC. Life imprisonment, pay a fine of
Rs.10,000/- and in default to suffer
additional RI for two months.
Under Section 392/34 of IPC. RI for seven years, pay a fine of
Rs.2,000/- and in default to suffer
additional RI for one month.
Under Section 120B of IPC. Life imprisonment, pay a fine of
Rs.2,000/- and in default to suffer
additional RI for two months.
All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 13.7.2015
complainant Ashish Goyal lodged a report at Police Station Mohan
Nagar to the effect that he resides at Kadambari Nagar and engaged in
manufacturing of fly-ash bricks. He along with his brother Amit Goyal
got a house constructed on their private land at Borsi and for the
purpose of selling the said house, they gave advertisement in Dainik
Bhaskar newspaper. On 12.7.2015 his brother Amit Goyal received a
call on his mobile and the caller told him that he is from Raipur and
wants to see the said house. On 13.7.2015 at about 1.15 pm his
brother Amit Goyal received a call that they have come from Raipur
and are waiting in front of Railway Station, Durg in a swift car.
Thereafter, Amit Goyal left for Green Chowk near railway station in his
car Maruti Ritz. However, at 3.36 pm the complainant received a call
from the mobile of his brother Amit Goyal that his brother has been
kidnapped and was asked to make arrangement of Rs.10 lacs within 1-
2 hours or else his brother would be killed. Based on the said report,
FIR (Ex.P/2) under Crime No.282/2015 was registered.
Thereafter, the complainant and his uncle arranged ransom and
at about 10.30 pm as per directions of the accused put the money bag
under a board at Indraprastha colony and reached Supela Chowk,
Bhilai. At around 11 pm Amit Goyal called the complainant and told that
the kidnappers have left him at Urla-Raipur road. Thereafter, Vivek
Goyal and Vaibhav Goyal reached the indicated place and took him
back to his house. During investigation, spot map Ex.P/30 was
prepared and statements of the complainant Ashish Goyal, Amit Goyal
and other witnesses were recorded. Against the accused/appellants
Crime No.174/2015 was also registered at Police Station Kumhari and
during the course of investigation, they were taken into custody and in
their memorandum statements they confessed abduction of Amit Goyal
for ransom. On search being made at the house of the accused
persons in Nagpur on 29.9.2015, cash amount of Rs.6.50 lacs, gold
bracelet, gold ring and visiting cards were recovered. The kidnapped
person duly identified the accused persons in TIP conducted on
1.10.2015 by the Executive Magistrate. This apart, the kidnapped
person also duly identified the gold articles in the TIP conducted on
3.10.2015. After completion of whole investigation, charge sheet was
filed against the accused persons before Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Durg.
03. Learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 364A/34,
392/34 and 120B of IPC against the accused which were abjured by
them and they prayed for trial. In order to substantiate its case the
prosecution examined 20 witnesses. Statements of the accused were
recorded under Section 313 of CrPC wherein they denied all the
incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution
case, pleaded innocence and false implication. No witness was
examined by them in their defence.
04. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation
of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court
convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above. Hence
these appeals.
05. Learned counsel for the appellants wound submit as under:
a) that Test Identification Parade conducted by the police is of no
relevance because prior to TIP, their photographs were already
published in the newspaper "Patrika" that they kidnapped Amit
Goyal for ransom. During pendency of the appeal, the appellants
filed an application IA No.03 under Section 391 of CrPC for
adducing additional evidence i.e. "Patrika" newspaper and vide
order dated 11.4.2023 it was observed that this application shall
be decided while hearing the appeal.
b) That, TIP was conducted in an unlawful manner as the Executive
Magistrate was not aware of the fundamentals of the said
proceedings and 10 people which were required for the purpose
of TIP were arranged by the abductee himself. No notice was
given to the witnesses for their appearance and no independent
witness was present in the said proceeding. PW-2 Amit Goyal
admits that he visited police station at Raipur on 25.9.2015 and
saw one of the accused there, meaning thereby he had already
seen one of the accused even prior to information of arrest of the
accused persons being sent to the IO, Mohan Nagar by IO,
Kumhari on 25.9.2015.
c) That, since the photographs of the accused persons were
already published in newspaper and their identity was made
public, the dock identification is rendered futile and of no
consequence.
d) That identification of the gold articles recovered from the house
of the appellants by the abductee is also doubtful as the
witnesses to the said proceedings are interested witnesses; the
identification memo dated 3.10.2015 does not bear signature of
one of the witnesses namely Shri Vaibhav Agrawal (PW-1) and
the police officers were also present at that time. Both the
witnesses to the said proceedings stated that they did not read
the memo and signed the same at the behest of the police.
e) That, IO Surendra Shrivastava (PW-18) in his cross-examination
(para 22) admits that he did not inform the local police at Nagpur
regarding recovery being effected. The IO failed to offer any
explanation for deviation from the legal procedure of informing
the local police before conducting any proceeding in their
jurisdiction.
f) That, the prosecution has also failed to prove that the amount
recovered from the accused was the same amount of ransom.
Further there is also no evidence on record to prove ownership
of the gold articles recovered.
g) That, recovery is made on 29.9.2015 and identification of
recovered gold articles is made on 3.10.2015 but no evidence
was led by the prosecution that during this period the recovered
article was kept in safe custody in sealed condition.
h) That for similar offence under Crime No.174/2015 the
accused/appellants have already been acquitted of all the
charges by learned trial court by giving them benefit of doubt
vide judgment dated 13.3.2019 passed by 6 th Additional
Sessions Judge, Durg in ST No.8/2016. In this judgment it is
observed that memorandum statements, recovery and
identification proceedings are highly questionable and doubtful.
i) That, recovery of cash amount as also gold ornaments from the
house of the appellants is highly doubtful because witness
signed recovery memo at Mohan Nagar Police Station, the
recovered articles were never sealed and no specimen seal was
mentioned in the recovery memo. This apart the articles
recovered were never produced before the learned trial Court
nor were shown to the appellants during trial.
j) That, on 26.9.2015 the accused/appellants were in custody of
Kumhari Police Station in Crime No.174/15 and during
investigation on 26.9.2015 the IO Laxman Kumeti (PW-15) made
recovery from accused Ravi Bansod, Sanam, Praveen and
Ravindra at 9.30, 9.50, 10.25 and 11.30 respectively at Kabir
Nagar, Raipur vide Ex.P/34, P/36, P/35 and P/33. On the same
day i.e. 26.9.2015 also memorandum of appellant Ravindra is
said to have been recorded by IO Surendra Shrivastava vide
Ex.P/4 at Kumhari Police Station, Durg at 11.20 in the present
Crime No.282/15 which is highly impossible.
k) That no call details of the complainant, abductee and the
accused persons were obtained and produced by the
prosecution to substantiate its case whereas it was a best piece
of evidence to prove involvement of the accused persons.
l) That, IO Surendra Shrivastava (PW-18) in para 43 of his
deposition admits that looking to the bank statement of accused
Ravindra Krishna Dewangan obtained from State Bank of India,
Main Branch, Nagpur he cannot tell as to who deposited amount
in his account. He also admits that in the said bank statement
there is no seal or signature of the bank officials and it is a
computer generated document which is an electronic record. He
admits that he did not demand certificate u/s 65B of the
Evidence Act in respect of this bank statement. As such,
relevancy and admissibility of such piece of document is
doubtful.
m) That, PW-18 Surendra Shrivastava admits that he did not make
panchanama of the house of the complainant and the abductee
situated at Madhuban Nagar, Borsi and also did not seize any
document as to its ownership.
n) That, PW-18 did not make seizure of Swift Dzire car which was
allegedly used by the accused/appellants in commission of the
offence. He explained that since the said car was already seized
in Crime No.174/2015 by Kumhari Police Station on 24.9.2015,
he placed copy of the said seizure memo on record. Even no
photograph of the said car was placed on record.
o) That, the entire prosecution story is based on the fact that Amit
Goyal was allegedly sitting in the car of the accused persons in
front of Cambean Hotel, however, there is no evidence on record
that support the said story as neither there is any panchanama
or eyewitness on record nor is the same mentioned in the spot
map drawn by the IO.
p) That, all the ingredients necessary for constituting offence u/s
364A of IPC are not proved by the prosecution. There is no
evidence or any medical report with regard to threatening to
cause hurt or death to the kidnapped person nor any hurt was
caused to him. Though knives and ropes were allegedly
recovered from the accused persons but same were never taken
into custody by the IO. As per statement of Amit Goyal it is clear
that he was not kept in confinement or threatened to death or
any hurt by the accused persons.
In view of the above submission, the impugned judgment is not
legally sustainable and is thus liable to be set aside and the appellants
be acquitted of all the charges. Reliance has been placed on the
decisions in the matters of Deoraj Deju Suvarna Vs. State of
Maharashtra, 1994 CrLJ 3602; Niranjan Lal Vs State of Haryana,
1995 CrlJ 248; Balkar Singh Vs. State of UP, 1990 CrLJ 77
Allahabad; Vijayan @ Rajan Vs. State of Kerala, AIR 1999 SC 1086;
Ravi @ Ravichandran Vs. State represented by Inspect of Police,
(2007) 15 SCC 372; Varun Chaudhari Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR
2011 SC 72; Mustkeen Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2011 SC 2769;
Vijay Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2014) 3 SCC 412; Manohar
Lal Sharma Vs. Principal Secy., (2014) 2 SCC 532; Arjkun
Panditrao Khotkar Vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and others in
Civil Appeal No.20825-20826/2017, judgment dated 14.7.2020;
Sheik Ahmed Vs. State of Telangana, CRA No.533/2021 (@ Special
Leave Petition (Crl.) No.308 of 2021) decided on June 28, 2021;
Gireesan Nair & others Vs. State of Kerala, (2023) 1 SCC 180; and
William Stephen Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another, (2024) 5
SCC 258.
06. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the
contention of the appellants submits that the learned trial Court upon
proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence has rightly
passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence
which needs no interference by this Court. Therefore, the present
appeals being devoid of any substance are liable to be dismissed.
Reliance has been placed on the decisions in the matters of
Hema Vs. State, (2013) 10 SCC 192, Mehboob Ali and another Vs.
State of Rajasthan, (2016) 14 SCC 640; Yogesh Singh Vs.
Mahabeer Singh and others, AIR 2016 SC 5160; and the order
dated 28.6.2024 passed by High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in CRR
No.1118/2022 in the matter of Bholu Singh and others Vs. State of
Jharkhand.
07. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
08. As regards the application IA No.03 filed in CRA No.1585/2019
under Section 391 of CrPC for adducing additional evidence,
investigating officer PW-18 Surendra Shrivastava in para 56 of his
deposition states that he has no knowledge whether photographs of
the accused persons were published on 26.9.2015 in daily newspaper
"Patrika". He admitted identification of all the accused persons on the
basis of photocopy of daily newspaper "Patrika" published on
26.9.2015. Thus, it is clear that during trial, photocopy of the daily
newspaper "Patrika" was shown to PW-18 and he was cross-examined
on this point. Being so, there is no need to allow this application for
adducing such additional evidence and also there is no need to
remand the case to the trial Court for exhibiting this additional
document and conducting trial on the said point. Therefore, the
application (IA No.03) filed u/s 391 of CrPC is hereby rejected.
09. It is clear from the record of learned trial Court that the
appellants were charged under Sections 364A/34, 392/34 and 120B of
IPC and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence the
learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants under these
sections as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment.
10. PW-2 Amit Goyal states that he received a call on 12 th July of
Ravindra Dewangan from Raipur who enquired from him about the
advertisement given in newspaper for selling his house and requested
him for showing the house. He informed about this call to his brother
Ashish Goyal in the evening. Next day he again received a call from
another number and the caller told that it is he who made him a call
yesterday and requested for showing the house for sale. Thereupon he
(PW-2) replied that he does not show the house, he would tell him the
location and after reaching the spot, a boy who resides there would
show him the house. However, when they insisted for showing the
house by him only as they are not acquainted with the routes of Durg-
Bhilai, he asked them about the place of meeting. They replied that he
should come near Durg Railway Station. Thereafter, they again called
him and said that they are reaching within 10 minutes, on which he told
them to stay at Green Chowk where he is coming. After some time a
white coloured car stopped there and one boy alighted from it. At this
juncture, the trial Court showing the accused persons present in the
Court asked this witness as to who was that boy. On this, this witness
replied that at that time he did not know his name but today he knows
that he is Ravindra Krishan Dewangan. The trial Court verified the said
accused.
11. This witness states that the accused shook hands with him and
asked whether he is the person who wants to sell the house and he
replied in the affirmative. In para 6 he states that when he again told
them that he would tell them the route and location and they should go
of their own, accused Ravindra told that they are not acquainted with
the routes and insisted for accompanying them. When he asked them
to go by their own vehicle and he would come by his own, the accused
Ravindra told that instead of going by separate vehicles, he should
come with them. On this, he (PW-2) sat in their vehicle on the backseat
with Ravindra and Praveen Ghate; the vehicle was being driven by
accused Sanam Sunil Dongre and accused Ravi was sitting beside
him. At this stage, the learned trial Court verified all these names
disclosed by this witness by asking the accused persons.
12. In para 9 he states that after seeing the college when the vehicle
took u-turn at around 2 o'clock, accused Praveen having caught hold of
his neck from behind pressed his head down. Accused Ravindra also
caught him and told that they would do nothing to him and would
release him after getting money. He states that one of the accused put
knife on his back, tied his hands back, tied his legs and blindfolded
him. He states that thereafter he was made to lie between two accused
in such a position so that he could not be seen from outside. He states
that when he requested them to release him, they said that they would
release him after getting Rs.10 lacs. However, when he told that at
present he has no money, they started abusing and threatening him to
kill. At that time, the accused persons snatched his gold ring, bracelet,
money, mobile and key of the car. He states that when he told the
accused persons that if they make him talk to his younger brother he
can arrange the money, then they made him talk to his brother through
mobile phone. He told his brother that he has been kidnapped and the
kidnappers are demanding money, on which his brother replied that he
would arrange the money. Thereafter, the accused persons also talked
to his brother and told him to make arrangement of money and they
would call him after 1 - 1 ½ hours. Thereafter the accused persons
made him (Amit Goyal) roam around in the car for 1 - 1 ½ hours. He
states that the accused persons again called his brother and asked him
to come alone at around 7-8 pm with money at Tatibandh Chowk. After
some time the accused persons took him (PW-2) to some place where
they loosened the rope tied around his hands and legs and made him
sit there. He states that since he was blindfolded he could not see that
place but it was like a house where fan was also running. In para 18 he
states that it was only accused Ravindra Krishna Dewangan who was
talking to him throughout. When the Court asked as to how did he
know that it was Ravindra only who was talking to him as he was
blindfolded, he explained that since when he met the accused persons,
Ravindra Krishna shook hands with him and talked to him, therefore,
he recognizes him.
13. PW-2 Amit Goyal further states that after obtaining ransom from
his brother, the accused persons left him at Urla and returned him the
mobile and key of his car. When he informed his brother through
mobile that he is at Urla, he advised him to call Sagar Goyal who will
pick him. Then he called Sagar and asked him to come near a factory
at Urla. Thereafter, Vivek, Sagar and one person of Crime Branch
came there to take him.
In cross-examination he denied the suggestion that after selling
the said house, the amount was to be distributed between the brothers
and also denied the suggestion that there is dispute between the
brothers in connection with distribution of said money. In para 33 he
denied the suggestion that he lost Rs.10 lacs in gambling, therefore, he
concocted this story. He admits that after being released he did not go
to police station but went to his house straightway. He admits the
suggestion that while giving statement in Mohan Nagar police station,
he did not know names of the accused. When he was called at DD
Nagar police station in Raipur, at that time only one accused was
present there. He admits that he was called at DD Nagar police station
and next day when the incident of kidnapping at Kumhari police station
was published in the newspaper, he does not remember whether
names and photos of the accused were published in the newspaper or
not.
14. According to this witness he identified the accused persons in
the Tehsil Office premises at Durg as per TIP Memo Ex.P/1. This TIP
was conducted on 1.10.2015 by the Executive Magistrate. The IO
admitted publication of photographs of all the accused in the
newspaper on 26.9.2015. So, learned counsel for the appellants
strongly objected to the reliability of TIP Memo Ex.P/1. However, it is
clear from the statement of PW-2 Amit Goyal that he went with all the
accused persons in their car and remained with them for about 8-9
hours. It is clear from paras 6 & 7 of his deposition that he identified
accused Ravindra Krishna Dewangan before the trial Court that it is he
who shook hands with him; he (PW-2) sat in their vehicle on the
backseat with Ravindra and Praveen Ghate; the vehicle was being
driven by accused Sanam Sunil Dongre and accused Ravi was sitting
beside him. In para 8 he again states that he showed them his house
at about 1.30 pm and also told them about its price and that the
accused persons enquired about any college in the nearby area and its
distance from the house. He states that after seeing the college when
they took u-turn, it was getting around 2 o'clock. Thus, it is clear that
PW-2 spent sufficient time with the accused persons in broad day light
and before the trial Court he identified each of the accused and
narrated their individual act including their position in the car. It is also
not in dispute that this witness was blindfolded after some time and as
such, he had the opportunity of seeing the accused persons. In his
lengthy cross-examination he remained firm. Therefore looking to the
categorical statement of this witness, it would be hazardous to discard
the evidence of this witness merely on the ground that photographs of
the accused were already published in some newspaper.
15. PW-5 Ashish Goyal, brother of Amit Goyal (PW-2), states in
examination-in-chief that at about 12.30 pm his brother went to show
the house and at around 3.30 he received a call from his brother Amit
who informed him about his kidnapping and requested for making
arrangement of Rs.10 lacs. One of the accused also asked him to
make arrangement of ten lacs or else his brother would be killed and
also warned of not informing the police about it. He then discussed the
matter with his family members and uncle and then they went to
Mohan Nagar police station where report was lodged vide Ex.P/2
which bears his signature from A to A part.
From the FIR (Ex.P/2), it is clear that the same was lodged by
Ashish Goyal on the same day i.e. 13.7.2025 at 18:25 hours. In this
FIR he clearly stated that his brother has been kidnapped by some
people in a swift car and they are demanding ransom for releasing him.
16. PW-12 Krishna Yadav states that he is working in the newly
constructed house of Ashish Goyal and Amit Goyal at Borsi. On the
date of incident Amit Goyal asked him over phone to keep the house
unlocked as he is coming with some people to show the house. After
some time, at around 2 pm Amit Goyal came there with four persons.
He states that Bhaiyya (Amit Goyal) and two boys got off the car and
those two boys were shown the house by Amit. Two boys were sitting
in the car and he could not see them. However, he expressed his
inability to identify those boys as he was on other side. He states that
after some time, Amit went back with them in the car and in the
evening he came to know from a police person that Amit has been
kidnapped.
17. PW-3 Rajkumar Goyal, uncle of Amit Goyal, states that he was
informed by Ashish Goyal that Amit Goyal has been kidnapped and ten
lacs is being demanded as ransom. Thereafter he arranged the money
and went to lodge report with Mohan Nagar police station. He sent his
son Sagar with Ashish to Raipur for getting Amit released by giving
ransom to the kidnappers. After getting ransom, Amit was released at
around 12 night and then Sagar and Ashish brought Amit to him. He
states that Amit was very much scared and crying a lot. Later on, Amit
narrated the whole incident to him. He denied the suggestion of the
defence that there is dispute between both the nephews (Ashish Goyal
and Amit Goyal) in connection with the property.
18. PW-4 Sagar Goyal states that he along with Ashish Goyal went
with the ransom to Raipur in separate vehicles. Ashish was driving a
white coloured Ritz car whereas he was riding motorcycle. Ashish was
talking with the accused over mobile and Ashish told him that the
accused persons are calling him near Indraprastha Colony at Ring
Road No.1 ahead of Tatibandh. Ashish stopped the car in Indraprastha
Colony and put the bag there. As soon as Ashish turned his vehicle
towards Tatibandh, he saw that one boy came on a bike and picked up
the said bag. Thereafter they searched for Amit and ultimately he was
found at Urla. He states that Amit was crying a lot, his physical and
mental condition was very pathetic and he was terrified. He admits the
suggestion that after being released by the kidnappers, they brought
Amit to Durg and meanwhile they did not inform police stations at
Raipur, Mohan Nagar, Durg or any other police station.
19. PW-7 Lokesh Singh is a witness to the memorandum and
seizure. He admitted his signature on the memorandum statements of
Ex.P/4, P/6, P/8, P/10 and seizure memos Ex.P/5, P/7, P/9 & P/11 from
A to A part. He is also a witness to TIP memo Ex.P/1 and admits his
signature thereon from C to C part. He states that Amit Goyal also
identified gold chain/bracelet and gold ring before him vide Ex.P/4
which bears his signature from B to B part. In cross-examination he
admits that he has been working as driver in the house of Amit Goyal
for the last three years and getting Rs.6,000/- pm salary. He admits
that he has become witness in this case at the behest of Amit Goyal.
He admits that when he went to Nagpur, 4-5 police personnel were
with him. He also admits that he went with the police to Nagpur by
booking Tavera vehicle. He admits the suggestion that when he went to
Kumhari police station, on that day the accused persons were kept
there handcuffed. He states that when he went inside the house of
Ravindra Krishna, his father, mother and sister were there. In para 14
he states that when he went inside the house of accused Ravi, there
was one woman in the house whom he does not know. He states that
the distance between the houses of Ravindra and Ravi is about 10-11
km. He admits in para 25 that he is not aware of seizure made from the
house of Ravindra at Nagpur from his mother and father. He also
expressed ignorance about the fact whether any person named Sharad
accompanied him or not. He denied the suggestion that he is making
false statement at the behest of Amit Goyal.
20. PW-11 Sharad Kumar, another witness to memorandum and
seizure, also admitted his signature on all the documents from B to B
part. However, he denied any seizure proceeding before him. The
prosecution declared him hostile and cross-examined where he denied
seizure proceedings as per seizure memo Ex.P/5. Though he admitted
that accused Ravindra Krishna went to State Bank of India, Link Office
(Nagpur) with the police before him but expressed ignorance about any
seizure there. He admits that he took the police and the accused in the
vehicle wherever accused Ravindra Krishna indicated. He also
admitted that he remained with the police and accused Ravindra
Krishan throughout.
21. It is thus clear from the memorandum statements of the accused
persons and the seizure effected in pursuance thereof that the accused
persons admitted kidnapping and snatching. As per memorandum of
accused Praveen (Ex.P/6), Rs.1000/- was seized from him vide Ex.P/7.
Memorandum of accused Ravi (Ex.P/8) led to seizure of Rs.2500/- vide
Ex.P/9 and on the memorandum of accused Sanam Sunil (Ex.P/10),
Rs.1500/- was seized (Ex.P/11). However, as per spot inspection
panchanama (Ex.P/12), no ornament or money was recovered. As per
seizure memo Ex.P/13, a sum of Rs.38,000/- withdrawn by accused
Ravindra Krishan from SBI, Main Branch, Link Office, Nagpur, was
seized.
The police also filed certain documents concerning another
Crime No.174/2015 registered at Police Station - Kumhari, Distt. Durg
i.e. Ex.P/20, P/21, P/26, P/27, P/28 & P/29. In the said crime number,
memorandum of accused Ravindra Dewangan (Ex.P/20) was recorded
on 24.9.2015 wherein he admitted commission of the present crime
and as per seizure memo Ex.P/29, a total sum of Rs.6 lacs from his
Swift and two mobile phones were seized. It is clear from this
memorandum that accused Ravindra Dewangan admitted kidnapping
of Amit Goyal on 24.9.2015 but in this case the police prepared
memorandum and seizure Ex.P/4 to P/13 and seized only Rs.1000/-,
2500/- & 1500/- from accused Praveen Ghate, Ravi and Sanam Sunil
respectively.
22. PW-15 Laxman Kumeti, Station House Officer at Police Station -
Kumhari, conducted investigation into Crime No.174/2015. He states
that he recorded memorandum of accused Ravindra Krishna and the
original memorandum is filed in ST No.8/2018 arising out of Crime
No.174/2015. He also sent written intimation on 25.9.2015 to Police
Station - Mohan Nagar vide Ex.P/21. The document of Ex.P/21 reads
as under:
"कार्यालय थाना प्रभारी धाना कु म्हारी
जिला- दुर्ग
प्रति,
थाना प्रभारी महोदय
थाना मोहन नगर
जिला- दुर्ग (छ.ग.)
विषय-थाना कु म्हारी के अप० क्र० 174/15 धारा 365, 364(A), 368/34 भादवि के
प्रकरण में गिरफ्तार किये गये आरोपी 1) रविन्द्र देवांगन 2) सनम सुनील ढोगरे 3) रवि
बसोढ़ 4) प्रवीण घाटे कि जानकारी के संबंध में
महोदय,
निवेदन है कि थाना कु म्हारी में दि० 24/09/15 को उक्त विषयांकित आरोपियों को गिरफ्तार
किया गया है जो पूछताछ के दौरान दि० 13/07/15 को अमित गोयल का अपहरण कर
फिरौती का रकम 10 लाख रुपये लेना और कु छ पैसो को खर्च कर देना तथा खर्च से बाकी
शेष रकम अपने पास नागपुर क्षेत्र में छिपा कर रखना बता रहे हैं। कृ पया आरोपियों की
पूछताछ हेड सादर सूचनार्थ ।
थाना प्रभारी
पुलिस थाना कु म्हारी
जिला- दुर्ग (छ.ग.)"
23. PW-18 Surendra Shrivastava, investigating officer in the present
case, states that he lodged FIR on 13.7.2015 under Cr.No.282/2015
under Section 364 of IPC which is Ex.P/2 and he admitted his
signature on this from B to B part. In para 4 he states that on 26.9.2015
at 11.20 am he recorded memorandum statement of accused Ravindra
Krishna Dewangan at PS-Kumhari vide Ex.P/4. On the same day he
recorded statement of accused Praveen vide Ex.P/6, memorandum of
accused Ravidada Rao Bansod vide Ex.P/8 and the memorandum of
accused Sanam Sunil Dongre vide Ex.P/10. He states that on
29.9.2015 on the basis of memorandum of accused Ravindra, he
searched the spot and prepared spot inspection panchanama Ex.P/12.
As per seizure memo of Ex.P/5, he recovered a rexine bag on being
produced by accused Ravindra from his house which contained
Rs.6.45 lacs, one gold bracelet of 15 gm, one gold ring of 7 gm and
two visiting cards of Goel Brothers. In cross-examination he admits that
he did not seize the vehicle used in commission of crime as the same
was already seized in another case by Kumhari police station and
therefore, in the present case he filed the certified photocopy of
memorandum statements and seizure memos prepared in another
case. He also admits that Rs.38,000/- was withdrawn by accused
Ravindra from SBI, Main Branch, Nagpur and he got the same seized
vide Ex.P/13. He also admits in para 48 that he did not obtain any
document from the abductee in relation to ownership of the gold ring
and gold bracelet which were seized as per Ex.P/5. He then volunteers
that abductee Amit Goyal had given description of the seized gold ring
and gold bracelet and the accused persons disclosed in their
memorandum statements about loot of the said property from Amit
Goyal. He denied the suggestion in para 72 that one month prior to the
date of incident accused Ravindra Dewangan came to Mohan Nagar
police station for lodging report against the abductee Amit Goyal
regarding some transaction. He denied the suggestion that on this
complaint, he enquired from Amit Goyal and Ashish Goyal. In cross-
examination he remained firm on his statement that after recording
memorandum statements he went with the witnesses to Nagpur at the
house of the accused Ravindra Krishna and Praveen Ghate.
PW-7 Lukesh Sinha and PW-11 Sharad Kumar Sahu have also
supported this statement of the IO that they went with the police party
to Nagpur where some seizure was effected during investigation.
24. PW-2 Amit Goyal states that the accused snatched his bracelet
and ring, he identified the bracelet and ring vide identification memo
Ex.P/4. PW-10 Devnarayan Chandrakar, who is a witness to Ex.P/4,
states that Amit Goyal identified his bracelet and ring before him. In
cross-examination he admits that he did not receive any notice in
writing for participating in the identification proceedings. He states that
he does not remember as to how many bracelets and rings were mixed
for conducting identification proceedings.
25. As per seizure memo of Ex.P/5 a rexine bag was seized from
accused Ravindra Krishna Dewangan on being produced by him from
his house which contained Rs.6.45 lacs, one gold bracelet of 15 gm,
one gold ring of 7 gm and two visiting cards of Goel Brothers. This
seizure was made on the basis of memorandum statement of accused
Ravindra Krishna Dewangan vide Ex.P/4 and both the witnesses
admitted this fact that they went with the police party to the house of
accused Ravindra Krishna Dewangan. Though some contradictions
and omissions have been pointed out by the defence in their
depositions but abductee Amit Goyal has categorically stated about his
kidnapping, duly identified all the four accused persons and his
ornaments which were recovered from the house of accused Ravindra.
26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mehboob Ali
(supra) held in paras 13, 14, 19 & 20 of its judgment as under:
"13. For application of Section 27 of Evidence Act, admissible
portion of confessional statement has to be found as to a fact
which were the immediate cause of the discovery, only that
would be part of legal evidence and not the rest. In a statement if
something new is discovered or recovered from the accused
which was not in the knowledge of the Police before disclosure
statement of the accused is recorded, is admissible in the
evidence.
14. Section 27 of Evidence Act refers when any "fact" is
deposed. Fact has been defined in Section 3 of the Act. Same is
quoted below :
"Fact" means and includes-- (1) any thing, state of things, or
relation of things, capable of being perceived by the senses;
(2) any mental condition of which any person is conscious.
Illustrations:
(a) That there are certain objects arranged in a certain order in a
certain place, is a fact.
(b) That a man heard or saw something, is a fact.
(c) That a man said certain words, is a fact.
(d) That a man holds a certain opinion, has a certain intention,
acts in good faith, or fraudulently, or uses a particular word in a
particular sense, or is or was at a specified time conscious of a
particular sensation, is a fact.
(e) That a man has a certain reputation, is a fact.
"Relevant". --One fact is said to be relevant to another when the
one is connected with the other in any of the ways referred to in
the provisions of this Act relating to the relevancy of facts."
19. In Subedar V. King Emperor, [AIR 1924 All. 207] it was held
that a statement made by the accused implicating himself and
others cannot be called 'first information report'. However it was
held that though it could not be treated as first information report
but could be used as information furnished under Section 27 of
Evidence Act. It was held thus : (SCC OnLine All para 3)
"3. ... The approver and one of the appellants were
arrested practically red-handed. They made statements to
the officer who arrested them involving admissions of guilt.
They went further and gave a list of the other members of
the gang. Thereupon the officer made a report in writing to
his superior, containing the information which he had
received, including the names of those other persons
received from the two men arrested. Somehow or other,
the learned Judge has described this police report, which
is merely the report of a confession, as "the first
information report." Now the first information report is a
well known technical description of a report under Section
154 of the Criminal Procedure Code, giving first
information of a cognizable crime. This is usually made by
the complainant, or by some one on his behalf. The
language is inapplicable to a statement made by the
accused. The novelty of a statement by an accused
person being called the first information report was to me
so strange, that when counsel for the appellants
addressed his argument to me attacking the Judge's use
of the first information report, I took no notice of the
argument. The learned Judge realized that he was dealing
with a confession, but he momentarily failed to appreciate
that the document itself was inadmissible, and that the
only way in which the information relied upon could be
used was by Section 27. That is to say, with regard to the
other accused, the officer giving evidence might say : "I
arrested them in consequence of information received
from Narain and Thakuri. When I arrested them they made
a statement to me which caused me to arrest these
people". The use which can legitimately be made of such
information is merely this, that when direct evidence is
given against the accused at the trial and there was
evidence against the accused, it is open to the defence to
check such evidence by asking whether the name of a
particular accused was mentioned or not at the time"
20. Considering the aforesaid dictums, it is apparent that there
was discovery of a fact as per the statement of Mehmood Ali and
Mohd. Firoz. Co- accused was nabbed on the basis of
identification made by the accused Mehboob and Firoz. That he
was dealing with fake currency notes came to the knowledge of
police through them. Recovery of forged currency notes was also
made from Anju Ali. Thus the aforesaid accused had the
knowledge about co-accused Anju Ali who was nabbed at their
instance and on the basis of their identification. These facts were
not to the knowledge of the Police hence the statements of the
accused persons leading to discovery of fact are clearly
admissible as per the provisions contained in Section 27 of the
Evidence Act which carves out an exception to the general
provisions about inadmissibility of confession made under police
custody contained in Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act."
27. In light of above, in the present case also it is clear that all the
accused persons were arrested in connection with other crime number
where in their memorandum statements they disclosed about the
present kidnapping of Amit Goyal and on such information being given,
the police of Police Station - Kumhari sent written intimation to Police
Station - Mohan Nagar based on which PW-18 investigation officer
recorded memorandum statements of all the accused persons and at
their instance went to Nagpur and recovered ornaments and cash from
the house of accused Ravindra Krishna Dewangan. Learned counsel
for the appellants strongly objected to the TIP and recovery of small
amount from other accused persons but it is clear from the statement
of Amit Goyal that he had sufficient time with the accused persons in
broad day light and he remained with them for about 8-9 hours. In the
Court also he was asked as to how he identified the voice of one of the
accused, to which he explained that it is accused Ravindra who shook
hands with him and talked to him throughout.
28. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, we are of the opinion that
based on the evidence adduced by the prosecution it has successfully
proved that it is the accused/appellant who hatched a criminal
conspiracy for kidnapping Amit Goyal for ransom and in furtherance
thereof, kidnapped Amit Goyal and received ransom of Rs.10 lacs and
also snatched his ornaments and other articles on the threat of life.
Having gone through the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for
the appellants, we find that they being distinguishable on facts are of
no help to the appellants. Learned trial court also minutely appreciated
the oral and documentary evidence in its correct perspective and as
such, was justified in holding the accused/appellants guilty under
Sections 364A/34, 392/34 and 120B of IPC.
29. As regards the quantum of sentence, learned counsel for the
appellants also alternatively submitted for reduction of sentence to the
period already undergone by the accused/appellants as they are facing
trial since 2016, languishing in jail for the last about 10 years and these
appeals are pending since 2019. However, offence under Section 364A
of IPC being punishable with death or imprisonment for life only, there
is no scope for any reduction in sentence.
30. In the result, both the appeals being devoid of any substance are
liable to be dismissed and are, accordingly, dismissed. The appellants
are reported to be in jail, therefore, no further order regarding their
arrest, surrender etc. is required to be passed.
A copy of this judgment along with original record be transmitted
to the concerned trial Court for information and compliance. A copy of
this judgment be also forwarded to the concerned Jail Superintendent
where the appellants are undergoing the sentence, for information and
necessary action.
Sd/ Sd/
(Rajani Dubey) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Digitally signed Judge
MOHD by MOHD
AKHTAR KHAN
AKHTAR Date:
2025.09.17
KHAN 10:14:40
+0530
Khan
