Jharkhand High Court
Pankaj Kumar @ Titu vs State Of Jharkhand on 10 September, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Ambuj Nath
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:28320-DB )
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 872 of 2015
[Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated
23.09.2015 (sentence passed on 28.09.2015) passed by Sri Arun Kumar
Gupta-II, learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-II, Giridih in
Sessions Trial No. 218/2012]
---------
1. Pankaj Kumar @ Titu, S/o Sri Umesh Kumar Gupta
2. Vikash Kumar, S/o Sri Umesh Kumar Gupta
3. Chandan Kandu @ Chandan Kr. Kandu, S/o Sri
Ramchandra Kandu
4. Raju Kandu @ Raju Kumar Kandu, S/o Sri Virendra Kandu
All residents of Village- Mathadih, P.O. & P.S.- Domchanch,
District- Koderma, Jharkhand .... .... Appellants
Versus
State of Jharkhand .... .... Respondent
---------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
---------
For the Appellants : Mr. Rajesh Lala, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Yogesh Modi, Advocate
---------
C.A.V. ORDER
Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.
Heard Rajesh Lala, learned counsel for the
appellants and Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned P.P. for the State
assisted by Mr. Yogesh Modi, learned counsel appearing for
the informant.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and
order of conviction and sentence dated 23.09.2015 (sentence
passed on 28.09.2015) passed by Sri Arun Kumar Gupta-II,
learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-II, Giridih in
Sessions Trial No. 218/2012, whereby and whereunder, the
appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable
u/s 363/34, 364/34 and 364(A)/34 of the IPC and have been
sentenced to R.I. for 07 years along with a fine of Rs. 5000/-
each for the offence u/s 363 of the IPC and in default in
payment of fine to undergo R.I. for 03 months, R.I. for 10
years along with a fine of Rs. 5000/- each for the offence u/s
364 of the IPC and in default in payment of fine to undergo
further R.I. for 03 months and R.I. for life along with a fine of
Rs. 10,000/- each for the offence u/s 364(A) of the IPC and in
case of default in payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for
06 months. All the sentences were directed to run
concurrently.
3. The prosecution case arises out of a written report
of Pradeep Kumar dated 12.09.2011, in which, it has been
stated that the son of the informant namely, Ujjwal Kumar
aged 08 years is a student of Class-I in Gyanoday Public
School. On 12.09.2011, the son of the informant as was the
routine had gone to the school in the school vehicle and after
school hours, he got down from the Bus along with other
children near Durga Mandir. The house of the informant is at
a distance of 500 meters from G.T. Road. The son of the
informant was returning home along with the daughter and
nephew of the informant as well as other children when all of
a sudden two persons came on a motorcycle and called out
the name of the son of the informant and abducted him. The
children who were present had seen the incident and they
had informed about the same to the family members of the
informant who in turn informed the informant. After about
half an hour a call came on his mobile no. 9431980431 from
mobile no. 8591494486 and after verifying his identity the
caller had given the phone to the abducted child after which
an amount of forty was demanded as ransom. The call was
thereafter disconnected. The informant became perturbed and
disturbed and in the meantime a call came from Dondlo
village that a child has been recovered by the villagers. The
informant and his family members reached the place of
occurrence and found that the recovered child is Ujjwal
Kumar. At the place of occurrence, he saw a pit and the
villagers had disclosed that the child was recovered from the
pit. The child claims that he can identify all the miscreants
and one of the miscreants used to frequent the house of his
neighbour Ankit whose name is Pankaj @ Titu.
Based on the aforesaid allegations Bagodar P.S.
Case No. 187/2011 was instituted u/s 364, 364(A)/34 of the
IPC. On completion of investigation charge sheet was
submitted and after cognizance was taken the case was
committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as
Sessions Trial No. 218/2012. Charge was framed against the
accused u/s 363/34, 364/34 and 364(A)/34 of the IPC which
was read over and explained to them in Hindi to which they
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution has examined as many as eleven
witnesses in support of its case.
5. P.W.1 (Laxmi Devi) has stated that the incident is of
12.09.2011 at 2:30 P.M. On the said date her son Ujjwal
Kumar, daughter Supriya Kumari and Saurav had gone to
school at 7:00 A.M. in the school vehicle. At 2:30 P.M., Saurav
and Supriya returned from the school but Ujjwal did not
return. On being asked Supriya had disclosed that all of them
had deboarded from the bus near Durga Mandir when two
persons on a motorcycle had taken away Ujjwal. She
thereafter informed about the incident to her husband and
brother-in-law. After sometime a phone call came and the
caller demanded Rs. 40,000/- as ransom. Later on, it came to
knowledge that four persons had taken her son to Dondlo
jungle. Some shepherds had seen her son. A pit was already
dug from before and the miscreants were trying to bury her
son in the pit. Some females had raised alarm at which the
accused persons had fled away. Later on, her son was taken
out from the pit and on receiving a telephonic call she and the
others had reached the said spot. Her son had disclosed that
there were four persons and one person was Pankaj @ Titu
who frequented the house of Ankit.
In cross-examination, she has deposed that her
son had taken the name of Pankaj and he had not disclosed
the name of others. Pankaj is the son of the cousin brother of
her husband who stays at Domchanch. Pankaj works in the
Military. The incident was seen by two females and no other.
The Police had gone along with them to Dondlo village.
6. P.W.2 (Durga Prasad Rana) has stated that he was
in the house and after having lunch he came out when
Pradeep Saw had disclosed to him about the incident. He and
the others had thereafter started searching for Ujjwal when an
information was received that the child has been found at
Dondlo jungle. He had thereafter gone to Dondlo jungle where
the child was found along with his family. He had heard that
the accused persons were putting the child in the pit. This
was disclosed by two females who were grazing cattle. He had
never seen the accused who were present in Court.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that his
house and the shop of Pradeep are facing each other. He had
not accompanied Pradeep to the Police Station. He has also
not gone with Pradeep in search of the child.
7. P.W.3 (Prahlad Nayak) has stated that he was in
the market when he had heard that the son of Pradeep has
been kidnapped. He started searching for the child when he
came to know that the child has been recovered at Dondlo. He
had gone to the place of occurrence and had seen a pit. The
Police was informed and the Police had seized a gunny bag
from the place of occurrence. He has proved his signature on
the seizure list which has been marked as Exhibit-1.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that at 2:30
P.M. a large crowd had gathered at the place of occurrence.
He had gone to the said place at 3-3:05 P.M.
8. P.W.4 (Tikli Devi) has stated that on the date of
occurrence at 1:00 P.M. she was grazing cows in the jungle
and Faguni Devi was also with her. Some persons had come
on two motorcycles who had dug out a pit and was putting a
child in the pit. When the child raised a cry of alarm she and
Faguni Devi rushed to the spot, at which, the accused
persons fled away leaving the child and a bag. The child was
thereafter taken out by them from the pit. The child was
taken to a hotel at a distance of 3 miles and he was fed and
thereafter the guardian of the child was called whose phone
number was mentioned in the tie and belt of the child. The
parents' and other persons had thereafter come and had
taken away the child.
In cross-examination, she has deposed that the pit
was in existence from before. The accused persons started
fleeing away when she and Faguni Devi were at a distance of
40 feet. When she had raised an alarm, nobody had come.
She knew the parents of the child from before. Faguni Devi is
her daughter-in-law.
9. P.W.5 (Faguni Devi) has stated that she was grazing
her cattle at Dondlo jungle when four persons came on two
motorcycles and they had a child with them. On seeing of the
child, she had gone nearby and saw the child being buried in
the pit. When she had rushed to the said spot to save the
child the accused persons had fled away. The child was
thereafter taken to a hotel and his guardians were called and
the parents of the child came to the Hotel. She has claimed to
identify the miscreants. She has stated that she had never
seen the four accused standing in the Dock ever.
In cross-examination, she has deposed that her
mother-in-law Tikli Devi had given her evidence before him. It
almost took two hours to reach the Hotel from the forest and
they had met several persons on the way but the incident was
not disclosed to them.
10. P.W.6 (Dilip Kumar) has stated that he had received
a phone call from his brother that his nephew Ujjwal has been
abducted by two persons on a motorcycle. After some time, a
call came on the mobile of his brother and the caller
demanded Rs. 40,00,000/- as ransom. Everyone started
searching for the child when a call came that the child has
been found. They went to Dondlo jungle where the child was
found in the company of some villagers and two women. The
women had disclosed that four persons were trying to bury
the child in the pit. A spade and a gunny bag were recovered
at the place of occurrence. The child was taken to the Police
Station where the statement was recorded.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had
not seen the occurrence. He was searching for the child in the
market. He had not gone to the school to search about the
missing child. One Fulni Devi had called on phone after which
he had gone to the place of occurrence along with his brother
on a motorcycle. One of the accused is the uncle of the victim
who works in the Military.
11. P.W.7 (Ujjwal Kumar) is the victim who has stated
that on 12.09.2011 at 7:00 A.M. he had gone to Gyanoday
Public School and along with him were Shalini, Supriya,
Sakchi, Saurav and Sahil. After the school hours he and
others got down from the school bus near Durga Mandir at
2:20 P.M. At that point of time a motorcycle came and a
helmet clad person got down and called out his name and
when he identified himself as Ujjwal Kumar he was forced to
sit on the motorcycle. On the way two other persons joined
and he has identified the person who was on another
motorcycle as he frequented the house of Ankit and his name
was Pankaj. He was taken to Dondlo jungle. The accused
Chandan had called his father and demanded an amount of
Rs. 40,00,000/. All the four accused tried to bury him on a
pit which was already dug. The pit was full of water when he
was dumped when two females raised a cry of alarm and
came to the said place at which the accused persons fled
away. He was taken out from the pit and the females had
taken him towards the river to clean him up as his dress had
become dirty. He was thereafter taken to a hotel and his
father was called on phone and subsequent thereto his family
members arrived and had taken him home. He has identified
all the four accused in the Dock as the persons present at the
place of occurrence.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that Pankaj
used to frequent the house of Ankit who was his neighbour.
At the time of abduction, the other children had gone ahead
and, therefore, they did not raise any alarm.
12. P.W.8 (Indradeo Prasad) is the grandfather of the
victim who has stated that he was in his shop when he came
to know that his grandson has been abducted near Durga
Mandir. His son had come to his place. A call was received by
his son in which the caller had made a ransom demand of Rs.
40,000/-. He and his son were sitting in his shop after 1-1½
hours when a call came and his son was informed that the
victim has been recovered and he was asked to come to a
hotel. He and the others including persons from the
administration had gone to the said place and had brought
the victim to the Police Station. The child had disclosed to the
Police that he could identify one person who used to frequent
the house of Ankit. The child was thereafter brought home.
When the mother of the child started taking the name of her
relatives one by one the child had pointed out the name of
Titu @ Pankaj who used to frequent the house of Ankit. The
Police on the same day had arrested the accused persons.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that when
his brother Nageshwar had died his wife was pregnant and he
had also left behind two daughters aged three and five years.
He had taken care of the entire family and one of the
daughters of Nageshwar namely, Sunita was married at
Domchanch. The accused Vikas and Pankaj are the sons of
Sunita. Sunita and his sons regularly visit his place. Pankaj
works in the Military and he had heard that Vikash has also
been selected in the Military. There is no business dispute
between her sons Pradeep Saw and Prakash Saw.
13. P.W.9 (Pradeep Kumar) is the informant and the
father of the victim who has stated that on 12.09.2011 his
son Ujjwal Kumar had gone to school at 8:00 A.M. in a school
bus. He was in his shop when he was informed that his son
has been kidnapped at which he rushed to his house and
asked the children who disclosed about the incident. After
half an hour a call came on his mobile in which a ransom
amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- was demanded. After half an hour
a call came from Dondlo village and the caller stated that the
child is with the villagers. He and his family members rushed
to Dondlo. The women who had his child on her lap had
disclosed that the child was recovered from a pit. Three
persons were trying to bury the child alive. On raising an
alarm, the accused persons had fled away. The child was
taken to the Police Station where he had given his written
report. He has proved the written report which has been
marked as Exhibit-2.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that the
distance of Dondlo village from the pit is about 100 meters.
When he had gone near the pit, he had not found any spade.
He does not remember whether the four children who were
with the abducted child had been taken to the Police Station
or not.
14. P.W.10 (Rupkant Singh) was posted as a Sub
Inspector of Police at Bagodar P.S. and on 12.09.2011 he had
taken over the investigation of Bagodar P.S. Case No.
187/2011. He had recorded the restatement of the informant.
He had received information about the kidnapping on
12.09.2011 at 2:45 P.M. and after making a station diary
entry he had left along with the Police force to verify such
information. In course of the inquiry, it came to light that the
abducted child has been recovered from Dondlo jungle. On
the same day at 7:30 P.M. Pradeep Kumar had given a written
application on the basis of which an FIR was lodged. He had
recorded the statement of the brother and father of the
informant as well as that of a villager named Durga Prasad
Rana. He had inspected the initial place of occurrence which
is near the Durga Mandir. He had thereafter proceeded to the
second place of occurrence and inspected the same on torch
light since darkness had descended. A deep pit was found
having been dug out which had some accumulated water.
From the second place of occurrence, he had proceeded to the
house of the informant where he had recorded the statement
of the wife of the informant. He could not record the
statements of the abducted child, his brother Saurav and his
sister since they had gone to sleep. On the next day he had
received an information that a boy has been kept hidden near
the pit. On reaching the place of occurrence at a distance of
30-40 feet from the pit a bag was recovered which was opened
in front of the witnesses and a spade was found inside it. A
seizure list was prepared which has been proved and marked
as Exhibit-2. He had thereafter recorded the statement of the
victim child and Supriya Kumari as well as the statements of
Tikli Devi and Faguni Devi. The mobile numbers from which
the ransom call was made was sent to the technical cell, Dy.
S.P. Office and the IMEI number was obtained. On
14.09.2011 an information was received that on 12.09.2011
at 11:00-12:00 A.M. the accused persons were seen near
Panchwati Guest House on two motorcycles. A raid was
conducted in the house of Pankaj Kumar @ Titu and he was
arrested and his confessional statement was recorded. Vikash
Kumar was also arrested and his confessional statement was
recorded. A mobile was recovered from the possession of
Vikash Kumar. The mobile was seized and a seizure list was
prepared which has been marked as Exhibit-3/1. The CBZ
Hero Honda motorcycle was recovered from the house of
Pankaj Kumar and a seizure list was prepared which has
been proved and marked as Exhibit- 3/2. On the disclosure of
Pankaj Kumar and Vikash a raid was conducted in the house
of Chandan Kandu and he was apprehended. From his house
a Hero Honda Splender motorcycle was recovered and a
seizure list was prepared which has been marked as Exhibit-
3/3. Thereafter Raju Kandu was apprehended and his
confessional statement was recorded. The confessional
statements of all the accused have been proved and marked
as Exhibit-4 to 4/3 series. On completion of investigation, he
had submitted charge-sheet. The formal First Information
Report has been proved and marked as Exhibit-5.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had
not interrogated any person near the first place of occurrence.
There was a small quantity of water in the pit. He did not find
any earth dug out from the pit. The black mobile of Nokia was
seized from Vikash Kumar and it had IMEI No.
358252046920489 and the mobile from which the ransom
call was received by Pradeep Kumar has IMEI No.
358252046920480. The victim Ujjwal Kumar had not stated
before him that Chandan had called his father.
15. P.W.11 (Sanjay Kumar Singh) has produced the
material exhibits in Court in connection with Bagodar P.S.
Case No. 187/2011 on the order of the Officer-in-Charge
Bagodar P.S. The motorcycle has been marked as Exhibit- MR
21/11. The Nokia mobile, Key rings with keys two in numbers
and the spade have been produced and marked as Material
Exhibits- I, II and III respectively. The bag has been marked
as Material Exhibit-IV. The motorcycles have been marked as
Material Exhibits- V and VI with objection.
16. The statements of the accused were recorded u/s
313 Cr.P.C., in which, they have denied their complicity in the
abduction of Ujjwal Kumar.
17. It has been submitted by Mr. Rajesh Lala, learned
counsel for the appellants that the ingredient of Section 364
of the IPC is not made out and, therefore, the charge framed
u/s 364 of the IPC is bad. It has been submitted that the
seizure list witnesses have not been examined and, therefore,
the seizure of the articles have not been proved by the
prosecution. There is a vital contradiction regarding the
recovery of the victim by the Police as stated by some of the
witnesses but as per the informant (P.W.9) and the
Investigating Officer (P.W.10) it was not the Police who had
recovered the victim rather as per P.W.10 it was learnt by him
that the boy has already been recovered. No Test
Identification Parade was held to enable P.W.4 and P.W.5 to
identify the appellants and for the first time identification was
made in the Dock which itself is weak piece of evidence. Even
the evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.5 are contradictory to each
other. The evidence of the victim examined as P.W.7 reveals
that he is a tutored witness. It has been submitted that the
learned trial court has not considered the matter in its proper
perspective and the benefit of doubt should have been
extended to the appellants.
18. Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned P.P. for the State has
submitted that the evidence of the witnesses specially that of
the victim (P.W.7) clearly indicates that the appellants had
taken an active part in abducting the victim, demanding
ransom money and intending to bury the victim in the pit. All
the appellants had confessed and recovery was also effected
of the motorcycles used in the abduction.
19. Mr. Yogesh Modi, learned counsel for the informant
has submitted that P.W.7 had identified the appellant Pankaj
@ Titu. P.W.7 has identified all the appellants in the Dock of
having been involved in the entire episode of abduction.
20. We have heard the learned counsel for the
respective sides and have also perused the Trial Court
Records.
21. The incident of abduction occurred when Ujjwal
Kumar (P.W.7), the son of the informant (P.W.9) was coming
home along with his sister Supriya Kumari and Saurav when
a helmet borne person on a motorcycle after ensuring the
identity of Ujjwal Kumar had abducted him. A call for ransom
was made and subsequent thereto in the midst of the search
conducted by P.W.9 and his family members' information was
received that the victim has been recovered from Dondlo
forest. The version of the witnesses more particularly P.W.4
and P.W.5 appears to suggest that the victim had escaped
death by a whisker. Both these witnesses have noted the
presence of each other and at the relevant point of time they
were grazing cattle in the jungle. Both have stated that during
grazing they had seen the miscreants putting a child on the
ditch and on raising alarm they had fled away, after which the
child was taken out from the ditch, cleaned up in a stream
and was taken to a hotel where his parents and relatives had
come and had taken him away. What is stark in the evidence
of P.W.4 and P.W.5 is the identity of the miscreants.
Admittedly, no Test Identification Parade was held and though
P.W.4 has claimed to have identified the appellants in the
Dock but P.W.5 has contradicted such claim by submitting
that she had not seen the miscreants standing at the Dock
earlier. The Investigating Officer has no doubt faltered on
failing to conduct a Test Identification Parade but such faulty
investigation would not throw a spanner on the prosecution
case. The identification of the accused in the Dock by the
witnesses cannot be simply brushed aside if there are other
corroborative features in support of such fact. All the accused
persons have been claimed to be seen by P.W.4, P.W.5 and
the victim (P.W.7). So far as P.W.7 is concerned, he has
identified all the accused persons in the Dock and he had
specifically named Pankaj @ Titu since the said appellant
used to frequent the house of Ankit his neighbour. As per
P.W.8 who is the grandfather of the victim the appellants
Pankaj and Vikash are the cousin brothers of the victim and it
is surprising that though Pankaj has been identified Vikash
has not been identified. The Investigating Officer had
recovered a mobile from the possession of Vikash Kumar but
the IMEI Number of the said mobile did not match with the
mobile from which the ransom call was made. Though the
motorcycles were recovered from the house of the accused but
it has not been ascertained as to whether the said
motorcycles were used in the commission of the offence or
not. It is also surprising to note that the abduction had taken
place right under the nose of Supriya and Saurav and they
had not been made witnesses though they were the witnesses
to the initial incident of abduction. There is a total dearth of
evidence so far as the appellant nos. 2, 3 and 4 are
concerned, though the same cannot be said of the appellant
no. 1 who was identified by the victim at the place of
occurrence itself. On the point of identification for the first
time in the Court, we may refer to the case of "P. Sasikumar
versus State represented by the Inspector of Police" reported in
(2024) 8 SCC 600, wherein it has been held as follows:
"21. It is well settled that TIP is only a part of police
investigation. The identification in TIP of an accused is
not a substantive piece of evidence. The substantive
piece of evidence, or what can be called evidence is only
dock identification that is identification made by witness
in court during trial. This identification has been made in
court by PW 1 and PW 5. The High Court rightly
dismisses the identification made by PW 1 for the
reason that the appellant i.e. Accused 2 was a stranger
to PW 1 and PW 1 had seen the appellant for the first
time when he was wearing a monkey cap, and in the
absence of TIP to admit the identification by PW 1 made
for the first time in the court was not proper.
22. However, the High Court has believed the
testimony of PW 5 who has identified Accused 2 under
similar circumstances! The appellant was also stranger
to PW 5 and PW 5 had also seen the accused i.e. the
present appellant for the first time on that fateful day i.e.
on 13-11-2014 while he was wearing a green-coloured
monkey cap. The only reason assigned for believing the
testimony of PW 5 is that he is after all an independent
witness and has no grudge to falsely implicate the
appellant. This is the entire reasoning.
23. We are afraid the High Court has gone completely
wrong in believing the testimony of PW 5 as to the
identification of the appellant. In cases where accused is
a stranger to a witness and there has been no TIP, the
trial court should be very cautious while accepting the
dock identification by such a witness (see
: Kunjumon v. State of Kerala [Kunjumon v. State of
Kerala, (2012) 13 SCC 750 : (2012) 4 SCC (Cri) 406] )."
22. Absence of any corroboration with authenticity
would wash out the so-called identification in the Dock as
regards the appellants nos. 2, 3 and 4 are concerned. The
prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt
as against the appellant no. 1 but has been unconvincing in
making out a case against the appellant nos. 2, 3 and 4.
23. Consequently, on the basis of the discussions made
hereinabove, we dismiss this appeal so far as the appellant
no. 1 is concerned. As regards the appellant nos. 2, 3 and 4
are concerned, the impugned judgment and order of
conviction and sentence dated 23.09.2015 (sentence passed
on 28.09.2015) passed by Sri Arun Kumar Gupta-II, learned
District & Additional Sessions Judge-II, Giridih in Sessions
Trial No. 218/2012 is hereby set aside.
24. Since the appellant nos. 2, 3 and 4 are in custody
they are directed to be released immediately and forthwith, if
not, wanted in any other case.
25. This appeal is partly allowed.
26. Pending I.As., if any, stands closed.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Ambuj Nath, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
Dated, the 10th day of September, 2025.
A. Sanga /-
