Patna High Court
Raja Kumar @ Raja vs The State Of Bihar on 30 January, 2025
Author: Alok Kumar Pandey
Bench: Alok Kumar Pandey
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.708 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-572 Year-2013 Thana- BETTIAH CITY District- West
Champaran
======================================================
Shobha Devi Wife of late Manmohan Patel Resident of Village- Naraianapur,
Police Station- Bagaha, District- West Champaran.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 808 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-572 Year-2013 Thana- BETTIAH CITY District- West
Champaran
======================================================
BAL KUNWAR MAHTO S/o Late Hiralal Mahto, Resident of Mohalla- Teen
Lalten Chowk, Bhola Babu Colony, P.S.- Bettiah Town, District- West
Champaran.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 855 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-572 Year-2013 Thana- BETTIAH CITY District- West
Champaran
======================================================
Raja Kumar @ Raja Son of Ramprit Chaudhary Resident of Village-
Narainapur, P.S. Bagaha, District- West Champaran.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 708 of 2017)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Krishna Kant Pandey, Amicus Curiae
For the State : Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, A.P.P.
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 808 of 2017)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, A.P.P.
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 855 of 2017)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.708 of 2017 dt.30-01-2025
2/51
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI)
Date : 30-01-2025
All these appeals arise out of common impugned judgment
of conviction dated 06.03.2017 and order of sentence dated
16.03.2017
passed by learned 6th Additional District and Sessions
Judge, West Champaran at Bettiah in Sessions Trial No. 59 of 2014,
arising out of Bettiah Town P.S. Case No. 572 of 2013 (G.R. No.
3979 of 2013). All these appeals are filed under Section 374(2) of
the Code of kidnappers Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as
'Code'), whereby the concerned Trial Court has convicted and
sentenced the present appellants for the offences punishable under
Section 302, 364A, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced
them to undergo rigorous life imprisonment for conviction under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and fine of Rs. 10,000/-,
further sentenced to undergo rigorous life imprisonment for
conviction under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code and a fine
of Rs. 10,000/-, and further sentenced to undergo rigorous life
imprisonment for conviction under Section 120B of the Indian Penal
Code and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and, in case of default of payment of
fine, the same shall be recovered from the property of the appellants.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.708 of 2017 dt.30-01-2025
1.1. Since, all these appeals arise out of common judgment
and order, they have been heard together and are being disposed of
by this common judgment.
FACTUAL MATRIX:-
2. The prosecution story, in a nutshell, is as under:-
2.1. The informant has stated, in his fardbeyan, that
his son Ranjeet Kumar left home saying that he was going to his
friend's party on 25.08.2013. He talked on his mobile number on
26.08.2013. He said that he would come home tomorrow. When he
talked again on 27.08.2013, he said that he was unwell. He would
come home by evening on 28.08.2013. His mobile number got
switched off after 02:00 p.m. on 28.08.2013. He went to the party
after talking on mobile number 9006285020. Again, on 30.08.2013,
after 13 attempts, he contacted his mobile no. 7277641828, but some
other person picked up the phone. He asked him to let him talk to his
son on which he replied that he had kidnapped his son and if they
want to get his son back safe and sound, he should keep ready Rs. 3
lakhs and that he will tell the place where he can send it. Meanwhile
Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- were withdrawn from Bagaha ATM on
27.08.2013 and 29.08.2013 respectively. He was afraid that some
untoward incident has happened to his son or that he has been
kidnapped.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.708 of 2017 dt.30-01-2025
2.2. After registration of the F.I.R., the Investigating
Officer started the investigation and, during the course of the
investigation, he had recorded the statement of the witnesses and
thereafter filed the charge-sheet against the appellants/accused
before the concerned Magistrate Court. As the case was exclusively
triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed
the same to the Sessions Court where the same was registered as
Sessions Trial No. 59 of 2014.
2.3. Before the Trial Court, the prosecution had examined
following 16 witnesses:-
PW-1 Kanhaiya Sah
PW-2 Sushila Devi
PW-3 Neha Kumari
PW-4 Suresh Sah
PW-5 Puja Kumari
PW-6 Subodh Sah
PW-7 Mahesh Prasad Yadav
PW-8 Om Prakash Chauhan
PW-9 Anil Ram
PW-10 Kameshwar Prasad
PW-11 Vimalendu Kumar
PW-12 Narendra Kumar
PW-13 Rajendra Kumar Pandey
PW-14 Abhay Kumar
PW-15 Nawal Kishore Singh
PW-16 Srikant Ram
3. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to
observe at this stage that the learned counsel, who had filed
vakalatnama on behalf of the appellant is not appearing in the matter
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.708 of 2017 dt.30-01-2025
and he is not present when the matter is called out. Further, the
matter was adjourned from time to time. However, nobody appears
on behalf of the appellant Shobha Devi in the present appeal. The
present appeal is pending since the year 2017 and the appellant-lady
accused is in custody since long. Therefore, we requested Mr.
Krishna Kant Pandey to assist the Court and, with his consent, he
was appointed as an Amicus Curiae.
3.1 In Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 708 of 2017, we
have heard Mr. Krishna Kant Pandey, learned Amicus Curiae for the
appellant and Mr Sujit Kumar Singh, learned A.P.P. for the
Respondent-State.
3.2. In Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 808 of 2017, we
have heard Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr Sujit Kumar Singh, learned A.P.P. for the
Respondent-State.
3.3. In Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 855 of 2017, we
have heard Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr Sujit Kumar Singh, learned A.P.P. for the
Respondent-State.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE
APPELLANTS:-
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.708 of 2017 dt.30-01-2025
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respective appellants would mainly submit that the present is a case
of circumstantial evidence and there is no eye-witness to the incident
in question. The prosecution has failed to complete the chain of
circumstances from which it can be established that the appellants
herein have committed the alleged offences despite which, the Trial
court has passed the impugned judgment and order. Learned counsel
have referred the deposition of the prosecution witnesses and the
other documentary evidence. Thereafter, it has been submitted that,
as per the case of the informant, his son (victim) left his house on
25.08.2013 to attend party hosted by one of his friends and thereafter
continued in touch with his family members telephonically for a few
days. Thus, it cannot be said that the victim was kidnapped by the
accused and, in fact, he had left his house on his own. Learned
counsel, at this stage, submits that, in the present case, dead body of
the victim has not been recovered nor post-mortem examination
report of the victim has been brought on record. Further, the death
certificate of the victim has not been duly proved. Thus, the
prosecution has miserably failed to prove the death of the victim and
the cause of death of the victim.
5. Learned counsel further submits that PW-1 has
stated that the Police caught Bal Kunwar Mahto behind Bajaj
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.708 of 2017 dt.30-01-2025
Agency at Teen Lalten Chowk. However, the informant (PW-4) has
given an altogether different story and has stated that he had gone at
Teen Lalten Chowk with the Police on the call of the kidnappers but
the kidnappers made a call saying that there is crowd at the said
place and asked him to come to Shiv Temple near Sagar Pokhara.
Further, when the informant and the others reached Sagar Pokhara,
then again they cancelled the programme and called them to Bhola
Babu Colony and again the kidnappers called the informant in the
bush behind the colony but the administration stopped the informant
and the Police went ahead and caught one person namely Bal
Kunwar Mahto and from there two persons managed their escape.
Learned counsel further submits that PW-11 has deposed before the
Court that he had apprehended the accused Bal Kunwar Mahto at
Bhola Babu Chowk who had come to collect the ransom. Learned
counsel, therefore, contended that the prosecution witnesses are not
even consistent with regard to the place from where the appellant
Bal Kunwar Mahto has been apprehended by the Police. It is further
submitted that so far as the appellant Bal Kunwar Mahto is
concerned, there is no evidence led by the prosecution connecting
his involvement with the other co-accused. There is no telephone
call made by the appellant to other accused nor to the victim or the
informant. No demand was made by him and, in fact, he was
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.708 of 2017 dt.30-01-2025
apprehended just at the distance of 500 meters from his house while
urinating. It is further submitted that, while giving statement under
Section 313 of the Code, the appellant Bal Kunwar Mahto has
specifically stated about the aforesaid aspect.
6. Learned counsel thereafter submitted that so far
as the appellant Raja Kumar @ Raja is concerned, the investigating
agency initially made him as a witness and the statement of the said
appellant was recorded under Section 164 of the Code. In the said
statement, he had specifically stated that Manmohan Patel @ Sohan
Patel had come to his house with Ranjeet on Sunday and had dinner
and thereafter Sohan, Ranjeet and Shobha slept in one and the same
room and on the following morning, they returned. He has further
stated that Manmohan Patel @ Sohan Patel had introduced Ranjeet
as his friend. It is submitted that, in the said statement, the said
appellant has specifically stated that he had no knowledge with
regard to the kidnapping of Ranjeet. At this stage, it is also submitted
that the appellant Raja Kumar @ Raja was thereafter implicated as
an accused and thereafter, on the basis of confessional statement of
the accused, it is alleged that a knife has been discovered from an
agricultural field which is open and accessible to all. It is further
submitted that the prosecution has also failed to prove that the said
knife which was recovered at the instance of the appellant Raja
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.708 of 2017 dt.30-01-2025
Kumar @ Raja, was used for killing the victim and that the appellant
had killed the victim. It is further submitted that the said knife was
not sent for necessary analysis to the F.S.L. nor any blood-stain of
the deceased could be proved over the knife. At this stage, it is also
contended that it is improbable that the accused persons would have
taken the risk to take back the knife from Nepal to Bagaha (West
Champaran) after crossing the Indo-Nepal border covering a
distance of more than a hundred kilometers after committing the so-
called occurrence. Learned counsel, therefore, urged that the said
appellant is also falsely implicated in the incident in question.
7. Learned counsel would further submit that no
CDR has been proved to show that the appellants herein are involved
in the alleged occurrence and there are major contradictions in the
deposition of the prosecution witnesses. It is also submitted that PW-
7 (investigating officer) has deposed that ransom was demanded
from the mobile of accused Pramod Chaudhary bearing SIM No.
9939975553. However, the said co-accused Pramod Chaudhary has
been acquitted by the Trial court since no call details report has been
legally proved by the prosecution in view of the provisions
contained in Section 65B(4) of Indian Evidence Act. Learned
counsel further submits that none of the Police officials have stated
regarding confession of any of the appellants with regard to the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.708 of 2017 dt.30-01-2025
killing of the victim and of making demand of ransom. Learned
counsel, therefore, urged that the prosecution has failed to prove the
case against the present appellants beyond reasonable doubt despite
which, the Trial court has recorded the order of conviction and,
therefore, the same is required to be quashed and set aside.
8. Learned counsel Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey
appearing for the appellants has placed reliance upon the following
decisions in support of his submissions:-
(i) Raja Naykar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh,
reported in (2024) 3 SCC 481.
(ii) Mustkeem @ Sirajudeen Vs. State of
Rajasthan, reported in (2011) 11 SCC 724.
(iii) Laxman Prasad @ Laxman Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2023) 6 SCC 399.
(iv) Babu Sahebgouda Rudragoudar & Ors. Vs.
State of Karnataka, reported in (2024) 8 SCC 149.
9. Learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of
the appellant Shobha Devi (in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 708 of
2017) has also supported the submissions canvassed by the learned
counsel who is appearing in two other appeals. However, in addition
to that, learned counsel would contend that so far as the appellant
Shobha Devi is concerned, she has been implicated merely because
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.708 of 2017 dt.30-01-2025
she is wife of an accused Manmohan Patel @ Sohan Patel. It is
contended that the said co-accused Manmohan Patel died during the
pendency of the trial. He has also submitted that the prosecution has
failed to connect the appellant Shobha Devi with the incident in
question and there is no evidence with regard to the kidnapping of
the victim by the appellant nor there is any evidence led by the
prosecution by which it can be proved that the appellant Shobha
Devi has killed the deceased at Nepal. Learned counsel, therefore,
urged that the appeal filed by the appellant Shobha Devi be allowed
by quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE:-
10. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has opposed
the present appeals. Learned A.P.P. has submitted that though it is a
case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has proved the case
against the appellants/accused beyond reasonable doubt. Learned
A.P.P. would submit that though initially, victim left the house
voluntarily. Thereafter he was kidnapped by the accused and by
making telephone call to the family members of the victim, demand
for ransom was made. It is further submitted that the appellant Bal
Kunwar Mahto was apprehended by the Police and two other
accused fled away from the place. It is further submitted that so far
as the appellant Raja Kumar @ Raja is concerned, initially he was
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.708 of 2017 dt.30-01-2025
shown as a witness and his statement was recorded under Section
164 of the Code, thereafter it has been revealed that he is also
involved in the incident in question and, therefore, on the basis of
the confessional statement of the accused, he was arrested and
thereafter the knife which was used in commission of the crime was
discovered at the instance of the said appellant. Thus, when the knife
has been discovered, the prosecution has proved that the appellant
has been involved with the other accused in committing the alleged
offences. It is further submitted that so far the appellant Shobha Devi
is concerned, she is the wife of the other co-accused Manmohan
Patel @ Sohan Patel. There is ample evidence led by the prosecution
from which it can be established that Manmohan Patel @ Sohan
Patel has committed the alleged crime. However, he died during the
pendency of the trial. The present appellant Shobha Devi is also
involved with her husband in committing the alleged offences and,
therefore, the Trial court has not committed any error while passing
the impugned judgment and order of conviction of sentence. Learned
A.P.P., therefore, urged that all these appeals be dismissed.
DISCUSSION WITH REGARD TO THE
DEPOSITION OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES:-
11. PW-1 Kanhaiya Sah has stated, in his
examination-in-chief, that the informant Suresh Sah is his uncle. He
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.708 of 2017 dt.30-01-2025
went to the Police Station and recorded his statement and his uncle
got the case registered. He has further stated that the location of the
mobile was found in Narkatiaganj. When the Police Inspector asked
if he had any relatives there, he refuted it. No one was caught from
Narkatiaganj. The accused said on the phone that they will only
allow them to talk to Ranjeet only after depositing Rs. 20,000/- in
his account. They deposited Rs. 20,000/- in Ranjeet's account.
Ranjeet had an ATM card and the accused withdrew money from the
ATM card in three installments. Later on, the Police caught three
accused namely Shobha Devi, Pramod Chaudhary and Raja. Raja
was released after Police interrogation. When the accused called
again regarding money, they went to give the money behind the
Bajaj Agency at Teen Lalten Chowk. Police also went there with
them in civil attire. While giving the money, the Police caught Bal
Kunwar Mahto. Bal Kunwar told that Manmohan, Raja and
Nandkishore ran away. Later, Raja and another accused Manmohan
were caught by the Police. Manmohan told that he (the victim) was
taken from Bagaha to Birgunj and was murdered behind the Medical
College. Three knives, two mobile phones and a SIM card were
recovered from Manmohan. On getting the information, they went to
Birgunj with DSP. At Birgunj Police Station, they were shown
Ranjeet's photo, clothes, cap and slippers of three men.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.708 of 2017 dt.30-01-2025
11.1. In his cross-examination, he has stated that his
statement was recorded by the Police four days after the incident.
His statement was recorded four days after the kidnapping.
12. PW-2 Sushila Devi is the mother of the
deceased. She has deposed, in her examination-in-chief, that her son
Ranjeet Kumar left home saying that he was going to a friend's
party. He told her on the phone in the evening that he would be home
at night. Her son did not come home at night. Then, in the morning,
when her husband called on her son's mobile, he said that if he does
not come by 10:00 a.m., he will come by evening. Her son did not
come in the evening either. On the third day, when she called, he told
her that he was not feeling well and that he had a stomachache.
When she asked him about the medicine, he told her affirmatively
that he had taken the medicine and that he would come by the
evening but he did not come. Then when she called, her son's mobile
was switched off. On the fourth day, when she called again, someone
else picked up the call and said that if they want the boy safe and
sound, then they should give him Rs. 3 lakhs as ransom and he will
release the boy. When they asked where to bring the money, he said
that he will tell them where to bring the money. At first, he called
and told them to bring the money to Narkatiaganj. Her husband and
brother-in-law's son went to Narkatiaganj after taking the money, a
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.708 of 2017 dt.30-01-2025
call came and told them to take the money and return since a man
was after them. He will inform again regarding the place and time.
Like this, the kidnapper used to call every two to four days and call
them somewhere and send them back without taking any money.
When they informed Police about this, raids started and, during this
time, Shobha Devi and Pramod Chaudhary were caught from behind
the Bagaha jail. One accused was caught from Teen Lalten. Her son
was not found. Raja was also caught by the Police. When
Manmohan Patel and Raja were caught, they gave statements that
they had taken the boy to Birgunj and murdered him behind the
Medical College. The knife was recovered.
12.1. In her cross-examination, she has stated that
after her son left, whenever they would receive the call from
kidnappers, both she and her husband used to talk to them. The
kidnappers had talked to her 2-3 times. Further, she has stated that
the Police took her statement. She told the Police that she had also
received the kidnapper's phone thrice and that they had demanded
ransom. She also told the Police that, the kidnappers used to call
them at different places and send them back without taking any
money. Her husband had informed the Police and she had also gone
along with him. Pramod Chaudhary was arrested from behind the
Bagaha jail. This was known to them by the administration. When
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.708 of 2017 dt.30-01-2025
they went to the Police Station, the Police informed them. When Bal
Kunwar was caught, he told about Ranjeet's murder. She gave the
number to the Police from which the kidnappers used to call them.
She gave this information to the Police within 5-7 days. She had
talked to Manmohan and Pramod over the phone. She has further
stated that she and her husband kept roaming around for a month on
the calls of the kidnappers. The accused persons had no previous
enmity with her son. She has further stated that she does not
remember as to how much money was given to Iqbal, who was the
travel agent. Both the husband and wife received information about
Ranjeet's murder at the Police Station. She has denied the fact that
everyone were enemies of her son Ranjeet and that there was a
dispute with some people regarding the transaction of money for
taking him abroad due to which Ranjeet disappeared somewhere and
it cannot be said that Ranjeet has been murdered and that she has
given wrong names of the accused by misleading the Police.
13. PW-3 Neha Kumari has stated, in her
examination-in-chief, that the incident is of 25.08.2013. She has
further stated that the Police caught one of the accused near Teen
Lalten Chowk during transaction of money. He told his name was
Bal Kunwar Mahto. He told the name of the ones who ran away as
Manmohan and Raja. Then, he called them to Bagaha and
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.708 of 2017 dt.30-01-2025
Narkatiaganj with money but asked them to return as the Police was
after them. Police raided and caught Shobha Devi and Pramod
Chaudhary from Bagaha. Other people ran away. Later, Manmohan
and Raja were caught. Shobha Devi and Pramod were caught with
ATM pin and mobile. Manmohan and Raja told them that they have
murdered their son behind the Medical College at Birgunj. When the
Police told her father, he went to the Police at Birgunj. Her elder
brother's clothes and slippers were found there which was
recognized by her father.
13.1. In her cross-examination, she has stated that the
Police took her statement which she gave 8-9 days after the incident.
She had also stated that when the Police raided, Shobha Devi and
Pramod Chaudhary were caught. She had also stated that Manmohan
and Raja were also caught. She had stated, in her statement, that
ATM, PAN card and mobile were recovered from the accused
persons. She had also stated that Manmohan and Raja had told them
that they have murdered their son behind the Medical College in
Birgunj. She had also stated that when the Police informed her
father, he went to Birgunj Police Station where her brother's clothes
and slippers were found which was recognized by her father. She
knew her brother's friends but does not remember their names. He
had 4-5 friends who used to come to her house. Her elder brother did
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.708 of 2017 dt.30-01-2025
not tell her the name of that friend to whose house he was going to
attend the party. Her father had talked to her elder brother on phone.
When her elder brother did not come for two days, she did not ask
her father which friend's house her elder brother had gone to. She
did not knew where the friends were from. Her father did not tell her
which friend's house her elder brother had gone to. She has further
denied the fact that her brother had many enemies and that her
brother was a criminal type and that is why, he did not even inform
at home whose house he was going.
14. PW-4 Suresh Sah is the informant of this case.
He has stated, in his examination-in-chief, that Ranjeet Kumar was
his son. The incident occurred on 25.08.2013 when Ranjeet left the
house saying that he was going to a friend's party and would return
by evening. When he did not return by evening, he called him and
his son said that he would return on the next day by 10:00 a.m. On
26.08.2013, at 01:00 p.m., when he came home to have lunch, his
son had not returned by then. He called him again and his son said
that he would return by evening. When he came home in the
evening, he said over the phone that he was unwell and would return
by 10 o'clock in the morning on the next day. When his son did not
come till 27.08.2013, he called him again on which his son replied
that he would come by 10:00 a.m. on 28.08.2013. He did not come
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.708 of 2017 dt.30-01-2025
till 10:00 a.m. and when he came to have lunch in the afternoon, he
called his son again and he said that he would come by evening. He
did not come till evening on 28.08.2013 and when he called him, his
mobile was switched off. On 29.08.2013, when he tried to call him
the whole day, his mobile was switched off. On 30.08.2013, after
continuous efforts, his son's phone rang at 08:00-08:15 a.m. but an
unknown person picked up the phone and told him that he had
kidnapped his son and if he wants his son's safety then he has to pay
a ransom of Rs. 3 lakhs. After that, he made a request to talk to his
son on which kidnapper replied him in negation that he will not be
able to make a conversation with his son and that his son is at a safe
place and that no network worked there. After that, the kidnapper
said that he will let him talk to his son on the next day on the
condition that he will have to bring Rs. 3 lakh. Further, the
kidnapper told him to prepare the money and that he will tell him the
place. On 01.09.2013, he gave a written report to the Police Station
after which Police came to his house and recorded his statement. On
02.09.2013, the kidnappers called him and told him to bring the
money to Bettiah Railway Station and give money in one hand and
take the boy with the other hand. He called the police and told them
everything and went to the Railway Station with the Police. After an
hour, the kidnappers called and told him to return home as they
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.708 of 2017 dt.30-01-2025
cannot come. On the same day at 02:00 p.m., they called again and
told him to catch the passenger train in the evening and come to
Gorakhpur. He then informed the Police. When the senior officer of
the Police Station, he and his nephew Kanhaiya Sah reached
Kumarbagh by train, the kidnappers called on his mobile and told
him to go back since the Police administration was with them. After
that, he came back. The kidnapper's had used the SIM card of his
son. On 03.09.2013, he received a call from his son's SIM card
asking him to transfer the money to his account as soon as possible.
His son will withdraw the money and will give it to him. He
informed the Police about everything. He went to SBI, Bettiah
Bazar Branch to deposit the money but the bank was not accepting
Rs. 2 lakh without PAN card. After this, he went to Kalibagh, where
the Inspector told him to deposit at least Rs. 20,000/- in his account,
so he deposited Rs. 20,000/- in the account. Then the kidnappers
called and he informed them about depositing Rs. 20,000/- in the
bank. When he got the passbook printed, he came to know that these
people had withdrawn all the money from the ATM at Bagaha. The
kidnappers Shobha Devi, Pramod Chaudhary and Raja were caught
on the basis of photo from Bagaha ATM. His ATM card, Ranjeet
Kumar's PAN card and Ranjeet's passport photocopy, LAVA mobile,
clothes, bag and some documents were recovered from the same
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.708 of 2017 dt.30-01-2025
place where the accused were caught. The second kidnapper called
him again on his mobile and told him to release an innocent boy who
has been caught. He has stated that the kidnapper had said on the
mobile that if they do not release that innocent person then they will
slit the veins of his son and throw him away. He had recorded it on
mobile and then played the said recording to the Police
administration. After this, FIR was lodged. After 3-4 days, he got
another call from his son's mobile telling him to give them the
money and then take his son from Teen Lalten Chowk. The
kidnappers had made this call from Ranjeet Kumar's phone. After
that, he went to the Police Station and played the recording of his
mobile. They told him that they will come to their house at 12
o'clock and take him along with them. He took the money and sat on
the rickshaw. The administration was also with him. When they
reached Teen Lalten Chowk, the kidnapper called again from
Ranjeet's mobile saying that there is a lot of crowd at Teen Lalten
Chowk, and that they should come near Sagar Pokhara Shiva
Temple. When they reached Sagar Pokhara, the call came again
telling him come to Bhola Babu's colony. When they reached there,
the kidnappers called again and told him to come wearing a saree
behind the colony. The administration forbade him to go there. The
police administration itself went ahead of him. From there, Bal
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.708 of 2017 dt.30-01-2025
Kunwar Mahto was caught and two men ran away. Bal Kunwar
himself told the name of Manmohan Patel and another person that
ran away. The police chased the escapees but they could not be
caught. Police informed him and called him to Mufassil Police
Station and DSP showed him the photograph that Manmohan Patel,
Shobha Devi, Raja, Pramod Chaudhary and Bal Kunwar took the
victim behind Birgunj Medical College and killed him. A day after
this, his nephew Kanhaiya Shah went to Birgunj Police Station and
inspected the place where his son was murdered. The boy's clothes,
shoes and cap were found there. In this case, the accused Raja stated
that a knife was recovered from the dam of the field.
14.1. In his cross-examination, he has stated that his
son Ranjeet used to work in Russia. His son had returned from
abroad in July, 2013. His passport was made through an agent and
his visa was also done through an agent. After his son's
disappearance, he did not inform the agent as his son had to go
abroad again. He came to know about the kidnapping at around
08:00 a.m. on 30.08.2013. He did not give any information to the
Police on that date. He informed the Police on 31 st August in the
afternoon. He has further stated that his son did not tell him the
name of which friend's party he was going to. He did not tell him
where he was going. The Police did not show him the CCTV footage
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.708 of 2017 dt.30-01-2025
of the ATM booth. He got the Death Certificate which was in Nepali
language. The Police told him that they had caught the accused on
the basis of CCTV footage. He has further stated that the money was
withdrawn from ATMs from Bagaha and Narkatiaganj. He did not
know any girl from Kalibagh named Muskan. He was not aware that
his son was in a love affair with a girl named Muskan from
Kalibagh. He has denied the fact that he and Subodh had the
knowledge about the love affair. He has denied the fact that because
of a girl named Muskan, his son went to Motihari and went away
from there.
15. PW-5 Pooja Kumari is the sister of the deceased
Ranjeet Kumar. She has stated, in her examination-in-chief, that her
brother Ranjeet left home saying that he was going to a party at his
friend's house. He did not return from there. For two days, father
talked to him on phone and he said he would come tomorrow
morning but he did not come. After that, her brother's mobile was
switched off. After that, her father called and some criminal picked
up the phone and said that they have kidnapped Ranjeet and they
want a ransom of Rs. 3 lakhs or else they will kill him. Her father
filed a case at the Police Station. The Police came and started the
investigation. After investigation, the police caught Shobha Devi and
Pramod Chaudhary from Bagaha. She already knew Shobha Devi
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.708 of 2017 dt.30-01-2025
because she lived at Cantonment Chowk. Mobile, PAN card, ATM
card and photocopy of passport were recovered from her. Then, the
criminals called and demanded money at Station Chowk. Her father
went to give money. They did not take the money there. Again, he
was called to Teen Lalten Chowk where the accused Bal Kunwar
was caught and the others fled. The accused persons also called them
to Narkatiaganj. The accused Manmohan and Raja were also caught
by the Police. Manmohan said that they have murdered Ranjeet near
Birgunj Medical College. Her brother's clothes, shoes, cap, etc., were
found there.
15.1. In her cross-examination, she has stated that her
statement was recorded at the Police Station. The Police recorded
her statement at home five days after Ranjeet had left.
16. PW-6 Subodh Sah has stated, in his examination-
in-chief, that Ranjeet was his friend. When he went to Suresh Sah's
house, the Police interrogated him there. He told him that, before the
kidnapping, a girl name Shobha Kumari used to call him on his
mobile phone. He asked him to make him talk to the girl. When he
talked to her and asked her name, the girl told him that her name was
Muskan and that she had passed intermediate. He had not seen the
girl but had only seen her photo. Ranjeet showed him the photo. He
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.708 of 2017 dt.30-01-2025
recognizes the girl who is standing in the court dock (the girl is the
accused Shobha Devi).
16.1. In his cross-examination, he has stated that after
the kidnapping of Ranjeet, he told Ranjeet's father that he used to
talk to a girl named Muskan whose house is near Kalibagh.
17. PW-7 Mahesh Prasad Yadav is the Investigating
Officer of this case. He has stated, in his examination-in-chief, that
on 01.09.2013, he was posted as Station Incharge at Kalibagh Police
Station. The informant and the witness told that before leaving his
house, the kidnapped Ranjeet Kumar had talked to mobile number
9006285920 from his Mobile no. 7277651828. On tracing the call of
mobile number 9006285920, it was found that this number is in the
name of Nazmul Nisha, PO- Mathiya, Ramnagar. To verify this, he
went to the house of Nazmul Nisha and took her statement where
she told that when her son was going to Jammu with the mobile
phone of this number, the mobile got lost in the train. On obtaining
the CDR of the mobile of the kidnapped person, it was found that on
25.08.2013, from 12:21 hrs. to 13:23 hrs. of 27.08.2013, his tower
location was at Bagaha. On taking out the CDR of the number
9006285920 from which the kidnapped person's mobile made the
most calls, it was found that its tower location was also at Bagaha.
The statement of the informant was again taken wherein the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.708 of 2017 dt.30-01-2025
informant told that in order to save his son's life and due to fear of
criminals, he had deposited Rs. 20,000/- in his account number
32591297578 (SBI) which the criminals withdrew from the ATM in
three installments from Narkatiaganj and Bagaha. The account was
of the informant whose ATM card was taken by the informant's son.
He went to Bagaha SBI and found number 1667 and 1669. On
30.08.2013, many calls were made to mobile no. 7765005716 from
mobile no. 7604096106. On obtaining and observing the call details
of 7654096106, it was found that many calls were made to mobile
no. 9939975553. On taking out the CAF of mobile no. 7765005716,
it was found that the said SIM belongs to Manmohan Singh, s/o
Nagina Singh, r/o- Baswalia Refugee Colony, P.S.- Bettiah. The
photograph of that person was also found in this CAF. On showing
that photograph to the spy, the spy told that the photograph is of
criminal Manmohan Patel @ Sohan Patel, who was a resident of
Patel Nagar, Bettiah and was arrested in a kidnapping case in the
past. After studying the tower location of all the above mentioned
SIMs, it was found that he is in Bagaha. After contacting the spy and
showing him the photograph of Manmohan, it was found that he was
residing in the house of Rampreet Chaudhary, near Bagichak, east of
Narayanpur Mohalla. The spy also informed that Pramod Chaudhary,
brother-in-law of Rampreet Chaudhary, was seen with him. After
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.708 of 2017 dt.30-01-2025
that, Pramod Chaudhary was arrested at Bagaha and when he was
searched, a Micromax mobile was recovered from him in which a
SIM card with the number 9939975553 was found. The SIM Card of
this mobile was seized by preparing a Seizure List which is marked
as Exhibit-2. Pramod Chaudhary gave his confessional statement
which he recorded and is marked as Exhibit-3. In his confessional
statement, he had stated that he had asked for ransom and that
Manmohan @ Sohan Patel took out the money from the ATM and
told him that he would give him Rs. 2,000/- from the withdrawn
money. He also told him that Manmohan would meet him at his
sister Sheesham Devi's house. On the basis of the information
provided by the accused Pramod Chaudhary, search and raid was
conducted at Sheesham Devi's house where Manmohan @ Shohan
Patel's wife Shobha Devi and Sheesham Devi's son Raja Kumar
were found. On searching, an extension company mobile was found
from Raja Kumar's pocket whose IMEI No. is 35577605209406/3 &
35577605209406/1 in which Uninor Sim no. 8936049919 was
found. It was seized by preparing a Seizure List in the presence of
two independent witnesses which was marked as Exhibit-2/9. After
that, he prepared two separate Seizure Lists of the items recovered
after searching the room which is marked as Exhibit-2/b & 2/c. He
recorded the confessional statement of Shobha Devi which is marked
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.708 of 2017 dt.30-01-2025
as Exhibit-3/9. The statement of Raja Kumar was recorded in the
court under Section 164 of the Code. During the investigation, it was
found that Ranjeet Kumar was killed by the kidnappers. Hence, an
application was filed in the court to add Section 302 of I.P.C. On
20.09.2013, the accused Shobha Devi was taken on Police remand
and based on the information received from her, the mobile phone of
the kidnapped person was recovered by S.I. Kameshwar Prasad of
Kalibagh O.P. Shobha Devi's confessional statement was again
recorded by ASI Kameshwar Prasad which was marked as Exhibit-
3/b.
17.1. In his cross-examination, he has stated that
Pramod Chaudhary was arrested after evidence against him was
found. Intelligence sources informed that Pramod Chaudhary also
lives with Manmohan. In Para-17, the witness Subodh has stated that
Ranjeet used to talk day and night with a girl named Muskan who
was from Kalibagh. After Subodh's statement, he enquired about a
girl named Muskan in Kalibagh but did not find her. He has further
stated that the demand for ransom was made from Pramod
Chaudhary's SIM number 9939975553 which is mentioned in Para-
40 of the Case Diary. After the statement of Raja Kumar was
recorded under Section 164 of the Code, he was released.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.708 of 2017 dt.30-01-2025
18. PW-8 Om Prakash Chauhan is also the
Investigating Officer of this case. In his deposition, he has stated
that, on 12.09.2013, he was posted at Town Police Station, Bettiah.
Under the leadership of S.H.O. Vimalendra Kumar, on 12.09.2013,
he went to Teen Lalten Chowk, Bettiah as a member of the raiding
team in connection with this case. At that place, the accused Bal
Kunwar asked the informant to come with the ransom money. They
arrested Bal Kunwar from Teen Lalten Chowk. After arresting him,
they raided the accused at Bhairoganj Railway Station in connection
with this case. At that place, the accused Sohan Patel @ Manmohan
Patel was caught.
18.1. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the
accused Bal Kunwar was arrested at Teen Lalten Chowk 100 feet
Bank Road. Bank Road is stated to be the busiest road of Bettiah.
Raja Mahto was arrested from Bagaha. He did not know in whose
name the seized mobile was at the time of arrest. They did not take
the independent witnesses with them. The Seizure was made in front
of the independent witness. He has denied the fact that Bal Kunwar
was arrested on the basis of suspicion as they did not find the real
culprit whom they went to arrest.
19. PW-9 Anil Ram has stated, in his examination-
in-chief, that he was posted as SHO in Shanichari Police Station on
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.708 of 2017 dt.30-01-2025
01.09.2013. He went to Bagaha on the orders of the senior police
official to assist in the raid during his duty. Vimalendra Kumar and
others were in the raiding party. During the raid, the accused Raja
was caught and goods were also recovered.
19.1. In his cross-examination, he has stated that no
articles were recovered from Raja in his presence.
20. PW-10 Kameshwar Prasad was posted at
Kalibagh O.P. on 27th May, 2013. He had written the confessional
statement of the female accused Shobha Devi on the instructions of
the investigator of this case which is marked as Exhibit-3/b. On the
basis of that confessional statement, when a raid was conducted at
the house of Rampreet Chaudhary at Bagaha, a mobile phone of
Lava company was recovered which was the mobile of the deceased.
At that time, there was no SIM card in it.
20.1. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the
confessional statement and Seizure List were prepared by him. He
has denied the fact that he has no evidence that the mobile phone
recovered from the house of Rampreet belonged to the deceased.
21. PW-11 Bimalendra Kumar was posted in Town
Police Station, Bettiah on 08.09.2013. On that day, the investigating
officer of Town Police Station Case No. 572/13 took his statement.
He had helped in the raids in that case. They conducted raids with
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.708 of 2017 dt.30-01-2025
regard to various articles in Bettiah city, Bagaha and Bhairoganj. He
took over the charge of investigation on 02.09.2013. During the
investigation, the accused Bal Kunwar from Bhola Babu Colony was
arrested on 12.09.2013. On that day, the deceased's father received a
call from the deceased's mobile asking him to bring the ransom
money. The accused who had come to collect the ransom money was
cornered and arrested near Bhola Babu Chowk. When he was
caught, he told his name as Bal Kunwar Mahto. During the
investigation, a black and red colour mobile phone with SIM no.
8227084900 was found in his possession. On 15.09. 2013, ASI Om
Prakash Chaudhary along with the armed force reached Bhairoganj
and arrested Manmohan Patel @ Sohan Patel, who is the accused in
the case. A black colour Nokia mobile set with SIM no. 7277641828
was recovered from him and a grey colour Samsung mobile set with
SIM no. 7654096106, three 100 rupees note, a black colour Lava
charger, black and red colour checkered saree, green colour printed
saree, pink colour petticoat and other inner garments, creams etc.
were found in a white coloured bag. On the basis of his confessional
statement, they left for Bagaha. In the confessional statement, he had
said that he gave the knife to Raja with which the deceased Ranjeet
was murdered. The confessional statement is in his handwriting and
also bears the signature of the accused and is marked as Exhibit-3/c.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.708 of 2017 dt.30-01-2025
On 16.09.2013, he went to Bagaha Narayanpur and waited for Raja.
When Raja arrived, he was taken into custody and questioned. In his
statement, he told that he had hidden the knife with which the
murder was committed, under the ridge of the field at a little distance
from the house. On the basis of the statement of the accused, a red
coloured knife with an iron handle was recovered. A Seizure List
was prepared for the same. The confessional statement of the
accused Raja is marked as Exhibit-3/b. The Seizure List of knife is
marked as Exhibit-2/b. The Seizure List of the items recovered from
the possession of Manmohan Patel @ Sohan Patel in which the
deceased's mobile SIM was also recovered is marked as Exhibit-2/c.
21.1. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the
informant in this case had informed him to arrest Manmohan Patel
from Teen Lalten Chowk. They had gone to arrest him. The call was
made from the informant's son's mobile SIM and ransom money
was demanded. The informant told that Manmohan Patel had
demanded money. He did not obtain the details of the mobile phone
etc. recovered from Bal Kunwar Mahto during his investigation. He
had prepared the Seizure List of the items recovered from Bal
Kunwar Mahto.
22. PW-12 Narendra Kumar has stated, in his
examination-in-chief, that the purse which was seized was of black
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.708 of 2017 dt.30-01-2025
colour and has a PAN card in the name of Sohan Patel and a voter ID
card of Sohan Patel and some document in the name of Dharmendra
Kumar Mishra, a voter ID card in the name of Sheesham Devi and
blood group in the name of Ranjeet Kumar.
22.1. In his cross-examination, he has stated that a red
knife was recovered in this case. A black file bag was found which
contained some papers. It contained Ranjeet Kumar's slip of invoice
and a photocopy of the invoice. Ranjeet Kumar's photocopy of the
Bihar School Examination Board's incharge and a blue colour diary
were there which is a bulletin and a photocopy of the certificate and
passport were recovered from Rampreet Chaudhary and this entire
file was marked as Exhibit-VIII.
23. PW-13 Rajendra Kumar Pandey has stated, in his
examination-in-chief, that on 10.09.2013, he was posted as a Judicial
Magistrate in Bettiah. He recorded the statement of witness Raj
Kumar under Section 164 of the Code as per the instructions of the
Additional District Magistrate, Bettiah.
24. PW-14 Abhay Kumar has stated, in his
deposition, that he had extracted the call details of the accused from
the crime scene which is in CD. Mahesh Prasad's handwriting is on
the CD. The CD was extracted in five copies.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.708 of 2017 dt.30-01-2025
24.1. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the
call details are in CD. He does not remember the names of the
person whose call details were there.
25. PW-15 Nawal Kishore Singh has deposed that on
15.09.2013, he was at Bhairoganj Railway Station. A person named
Manmohan Patel was caught by the Police. A mobile charger and a
mobile were found in his bag and there were a lot of things in it.
25.1. In his cross-examination, he has stated that
items were recovered in front of him. He cannot say about the brand
of mobile. There was a cloth in the bag. He cannot say as to what
was written on it. There were two pants and shirt.
26. PW-16 Srikant Ram has stated that, on
15.09.2013, he was at Bhairoganj Railway Station. Nawal Kishore
Singh was also there with him. Manmohan Patel was caught by the
Police. Baggage items, charger, mobile were recovered from him. A
Seizure List was prepared which was marked as Exhibit-2/d.
26.1. In his cross-examination, he has stated that
darogaji showed the contents of the bag and told him to see that
these were the items. There was a number on mobile and charger. He
cannot tell its brand name. There were many other people there, he
cannot tell their names.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.708 of 2017 dt.30-01-2025
27. Deposition of Raja Kumar, Court Witness, under
Section 164 Cr. P.C. has been recorded in which he has stated that
Sohan whose name is also Manmohan brought Ranjeet to his house
in Bagaha. He does not remember the date but only remembers that
they had food and drinks. Sohan, Ranjeet and Shobha slept in one
room and he slept next to him. After that, Sohan left with Ranjeet.
Sohan introduced Ranjeet as his friend and Ranjeet also introduced
him as his friend. After that, everyone left his house. He has no
knowledge of this case.
OBSERVATION AND REASONING:-
28. We have considered the submissions canvassed
by the learned counsels, perused the documentary evidence and re-
appreciated the entire evidence led by the prosecution. The present is
a case of circumstantial evidence and there is no eye-witness to the
incident in question. From the evidence led by the prosecution, it
transpires that the written complaint was given by the informant
Suresh Sah on 01.09.2013 at about 20:40 hours for the incident
which took place on 25.08.2013. In the written complaint itself, the
informant has stated that his son Ranjeet Kumar left home saying
that he was going to his friend's party and thereafter he talked on his
mobile phone on 26.08.2013. He again talked on 27.08.2013 and
informed that he was unwell and that he would come home by
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.708 of 2017 dt.30-01-2025
evening on 28.08.2013. However, thereafter his mobile phone got
switched off after 02:00 p.m. on 28.08.2013. In the complaint itself,
it has been specifically stated that he went to the party after talking
on mobile phone No. 9006285020. It is further stated that after 13
attempts, he contacted the mobile of his son. However, some other
person picked up the phone. The said person replied that he had
kidnapped his son and if they want to get his son back safe, he
should keep ready Rs. 3 lakhs. Further, details are also given in the
written complaint. However, from the said written complaint, it is
revealed that, on 25.08.2013, the victim himself has voluntarily left
the house with a view to attend the party of his friend and he was in
contact with the informant for three days.
29. From the deposition of PW-1, who is the nephew
of the informant, it transpires that the said witness has deposed
before the Court that the accused made telephone call and informed
that Rs. 20,000/- be credited in the account of Ranjeet and, therefore,
Rs. 20,000/- was credited in the said account and through ATM
Card, amount was withdrawn. The said witness has further deposed
that the accused made telephone call and called the informant at
Teen Lalten Chowk behind Bajaj Agency and when they went at the
said place with the Police, Bal Kunwar Mahto was apprehended and,
on the basis of the information given by Bal Kunwar Mahto,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.708 of 2017 dt.30-01-2025
Manmohan and Raja were apprehended. Manmohand informed that
he has killed the victim near the Medical College, Birgunj. When
they went to the Birgunj with DSP, the Officer of Birgunj Police
Station showed them the photograph, clothe and slippers of the
victim and after seeing the photo, they came to know that Ranjeet
has been killed. PW-2 (Sushila Devi), who is the mother of the
victim, has also deposed that her son had gone to attend the party of
his friend. She has further stated that the appellant/accused Bal
Kunwar Mahto was apprehended at Teen Lalten Chowk.
30. PW-4 Suresh Sah (informant) has deposed in
Para 8 of his deposition that, on the basis of photo taken at ATM,
Bagaha, kidnappers were apprehended and Shobha Devi, Pramod
Chaudhary and Raja Kumar @ Raja were arrested. However, during
cross-examination, the said witness has stated, in Para-12, that
initially the kidnapper informed him on the telephone to come at
Teen Lalten Chowk. However, thereafter it was informed that the
said place is crowded and, therefore, informant was asked to Sagar
Pokhara Shiv Temple. When the informant and the Police went to
Sagar Pokhara, once again, telephone call was made and it was
informed that now programme is cancelled and the informant was
asked to come to Bhola Babu Colony. He has specifically stated that
Bal Kunwar Mahto was apprehended by the Police at the said place.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.708 of 2017 dt.30-01-2025
During cross-examination, he has further admitted that CCTV
footage captured by the Police from the ATM booth was not shown
to him. The said witness has further admitted that post-mortem
report was not shown to him and the death certificate which was
given to him is in Nepali language.
31. We have also gone through the deposition given
by the investigating officer. From the entire evidence led by the
prosecution, it is revealed that there is no eye-witness to the
occurrence either of kidnapping or killing. The appellant Bal
Kunwar Mahto had not been arrested with any amount of ransom nor
he was arrested while making any kind of demand nor with the
alleged mobile from which the demand was being made. In fact,
from the deposition given by PW-11 (Vimalendu Kumar), while
investigating the case on 12.09.2013 has recorded in the case diary
that the informant had told that Manmohan Patel @ Sohan Patel had
called him at Teen Lalten Chowk to meet and thereafter PW-11 with
his team members, started waiting for Manmohan Patel @ Sohan
Patel who had to come to take money from the informant but he
apprehended Bal Kunwar Mahto, who is the resident of Bhola Babu
Colony. PW-11 has specifically deposed, in Para 2 of his deposition,
that he had apprehended accused Bal Kunwar Mahto at Bhola Babu
Chowk who had came to collect ransom. Thus, there are different
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.708 of 2017 dt.30-01-2025
versions with regard to the place from which the appellant Bal
Kunwar Mahto was apprehended. In fact, it is a specific case of the
appellant that he is a resident of Bhola Babu Colony and he was
apprehended just at a distance of 500 meters from his house while
urinating. Thus, there are all probability of arrest of Bal Kunwar
Mahto merely on the basis of suspicion. In fact, the prosecution has
failed to establish his connection with other co-accused persons by
leading cogent evidence. From Para-10 of the cross-examination of
PW-11, it is revealed that one mobile phone was seized from
appellant Bal Kunwar Mahto. However, he has admitted that CDR of
the said mobile was not obtained by him during the course of the
investigation. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove that the said
appellant was in contact with the other accused and he had
demanded amount of ransom from the informant. It would further
reveal from the deposition and, more importantly, from Para-30 of
the cross-examination of PW-7 (investigating officer) that ransom
amount was demanded from the mobile phone of Pramod
Chaudhary. However, it is pertinent to note, at this stage, that the
said co-accused Pramod Chaudhary has been acquitted by the Trial
court. Thus, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to
prove that the accused/appellant Bal Kunwar Mahto was involved in
the act of kidnapping and killing of the victim Ranjeet Kumar.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.708 of 2017 dt.30-01-2025
32. So far as the appellant Raja Kumar @ Raja is
concerned, it is pertinent to note that initially he was shown as a
witness by the investigating agency and, therefore, his statement
under Section 164 of the Code came to be recorded. The said
document is marked as an Exhibit-4. In the said statement, he has
stated that he is aged about 17 years and he has stated that
Manmohan Patel @ Sohan Patel had come with Ranjeet at his house
on Sunday, had dinner and thereafter Manmohan Patel @ Sohan
Patel, Ranjeet and Shobha Devi had slept in one and the same room
and on the following morning, they returned. He has further stated
that Manmohan Patel @ Sohan Patel had introduced Ranjeet as his
friend and, in fact, he has specifically stated that he had no
knowledge regarding the kidnapping of Ranjeet. From the record, it
further transpires that thereafter, on the basis of the confessional
statement of the co-accused, Raja Kumar @ Raja was arrested and
his confessional statement was also recorded. It is a case of the
prosecution that knife which was used in killing the deceased has
been discovered at the instance of the said accused Raja Kumar @
Raja and it was discovered from an agricultural field which is open
and accessible to all. It is relevant to note, at this stage, that the said
knife was not sent for scientific test by F.S.L. nor there is any
reference with regard to the blood-stain over the said knife.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.708 of 2017 dt.30-01-2025
33. At this stage, it is very important to observe that,
in the present case, the prosecution has failed to produce post-
mortem report of the deceased. The Doctor, who had conducted the
post-mortem examination, is also not examined. It appears that, on
the basis of the confessional statement of the accused Manmohan
Patel, Police along with the informant went to Nepal at Birgunj
Police Station where the photograph of the victim was shown and
certain articles of the victim were shown to the informant and the
investigating officer by the Police officer of Birgunj Police Station,
Nepal and the informant has admitted that even the death certificate
which was given by the said Police Station was in Nepali language.
The said document is also not produced. Thus, fact remains that
there is no evidence with regard to the death of the victim Ranjeet
Kumar. Even if it is believed that the victim Ranjeet Kumar died,
even then what was the cause of the death of the victim is not
known. The injury sustained by the deceased is also not known and,
therefore, merely because the knife has been discovered at the
instance of the accused, it cannot be said that the death of Ranjeet
Kumar has been caused with the said knife which was discovered at
the instance of appellant Raja Kumar. Further, the said knife was
discovered from an agricultural field which is open and accessible to
all. The said knife was not sent to F.S.L. for necessary analysis.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.708 of 2017 dt.30-01-2025
Thus, we are of the view that merely because the knife was
discovered at the instance of appellant Raja Kumar, it cannot be
presumed that the said knife was used in killing the deceased Ranjeet
Kumar in absence of any other material. Thus, we are of the view
that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellant
Raja Kumar beyond reasonable doubt.
34. So far as the appellant Shobha Devi is
concerned, it is revealed that she is wife of the co-accused
Manmohan Patel @ Sohan Patel, who died during the pendency of
the trial. However, there is no evidence on record to suggest that
Shobha Devi has kidnapped the victim and that Shobha Devi has
made telephone call to the informant or any other prosecution
witness and demanded ransom amount. It appears that certain
articles including the SIM of the mobile of the deceased has been
seized from the co-accused Manmohan Patel @ Sohan Patel.
However, on the basis of the same, it cannot be presumed that the
appellant Shobha Devi is involved in act of kidnapping of the victim
and killing of the victim. We are of the view that the prosecution has
failed to complete the chain of circumstances from which it can be
established that the present appellants have committed the alleged
offences.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.708 of 2017 dt.30-01-2025
35. At this stage, we would like to refer the decision
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raja Naykar
(supra), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in Para 8
& 17 as under:-
"8. At the conclusion of trial, the trial Judge found
that the prosecution had succeeded in proving that the appellant
had committed the murder of the deceased. The prosecution
further proved that the accused persons committed criminal
conspiracy to destroy the evidence, and threw the body of the
deceased after burning the same behind the Baba Balak Nath
temple. The prosecution also proved that Accused 2 helped in
throwing the body of the deceased and destroying evidence by
way of cleaning the bloodstains, etc. of the deceased.
17. It can thus clearly be seen that it is necessary for
the prosecution that the circumstances from which the
conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
The Court holds that it is a primary principle that the accused
"must be" and not merely "may be" proved guilty before a
court can convict the accused. It has been held that there is not
only a grammatical but a legal distinction between "may be
proved" and "must be or should be proved". It has been held
that the facts so established should be consistent only with the
guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be
explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is
guilty. It has further been held that the circumstances should be
such that they exclude every possible hypothesis except the one
to be proved. It has been held that there must be a chain of
evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for
the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and
must show that in all human probabilities the act must have been
done by the accused."
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.708 of 2017 dt.30-01-2025
36. In the case of Mustkeem @ Sirajudeen
(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in Para 23, 24 &
25 as under:-
"23. It is too well settled in law that where the case
rests squarely on circumstantial evidence the inference of guilt
can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and
circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence
of the accused or the guilt of any other person. No doubt, it is
true that conviction can be based solely on circumstantial
evidence but it should be decided on the touchstone of law
relating to circumstantial evidence, which has been well settled
by law by this Court.
24. In a most celebrated case of this Court, Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116 :
1984 SCC (Cri) 487] in para 153, some cardinal principles
regarding the appreciation of circumstantial evidence have been
postulated. Whenever the case is based on circumstantial
evidence the following features are required to be complied with.
It would be beneficial to repeat the same salient features once
again which are as under: (SCC p. 185)
"(i) The circumstances from which the conclusion of
guilt is to be drawn must or should be and not merely
'may be' fully established;
(ii) The facts so established should be consistent only
with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to
say, they should not be explainable on any other
hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
(iii) The circumstances should be of a conclusive
nature and tendency;
(iv) They should exclude every possible hypothesis
except the one to be proved; and
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.708 of 2017 dt.30-01-2025
(v) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as
not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the accused and must
show that in all human probability the act must have
been done by the accused."
25. With regard to Section 27 of the Act, what is important is
discovery of the material object at the disclosure of the accused
but such disclosure alone would not automatically lead to the
conclusion that the offence was also committed by the accused.
In fact, thereafter, burden lies on the prosecution to establish a
close link between discovery of the material object and its use in
the commission of the offence. What is admissible under Section
27 of the Act is the information leading to discovery and not any
opinion formed on it by the prosecution."
37. In the case of Laxman Prasad (supra), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in Para 2, 3 & 4 as under:-
"2. The present one is a case of circumstantial
evidence. The prosecution led evidence to establish three links of
the chain : (i) motive, (ii) last seen, and (iii) recovery of weapon
of assault, at the pointing out of the appellant. The High Court,
while dealing with the evidence on record, agreed with the
finding of motive and the last seen, however, insofar as the
recovery of the weapon of assault and bloodstained clothes were
concerned, the High Court in para 18 of the judgment held the
same to be invalid and also goes to the extent to say that the
recovery which has been made does not indicate that the
appellant has committed the offence. Still, it observed that
looking to the entire gamut and other clinching evidence against
the appellant of last seen and motive, affirmed the conviction.
3. We do not find such conclusion of the High Court
to be strictly in accordance with law. In a case of circumstantial
evidence, the chain has to be complete in all respects so as to
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.708 of 2017 dt.30-01-2025
indicate the guilt of the accused and also exclude any other
theory of the crime. The law is well settled on the above point.
Reference may be had to the following cases:
(i) Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of
Maharashtra [Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State
of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 : 1984 SCC
(Cri) 487] ;
(ii) Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan v. State of
Gujarat [Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan v. State of
Gujarat, (2020) 14 SCC 750 : (2020) 4 SCC (Cri)
856 : AIR 2020 SC 180] .
4. Thus, if the High Court found one of the links to be
missing and not proved in view of the settled law on the point,
the conviction ought to have been interfered with."
38. From the aforesaid decisions rendered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, it can be said that whenever the case is
based on circumstantial evidence, certain features are required to be
complied with i.e. the circumstances from which the conclusion of
guilt is to be drawn 'must be' or should be and not merely 'may be'
fully established. The facts established should be consistent only
with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused i.e. to say they should not
be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is
guilty. Further, there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not
to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the
innocence of the accused and must show that in all human
probability the act must have been done by the accused.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.708 of 2017 dt.30-01-2025
39. In the case of Babu Sahebgouda Rudragoudar
(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Para 61, 62, 63 &
67 as under:-
"61. The statement of an accused recorded by a
police officer under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is basically a
memorandum of confession of the accused recorded by the
investigating officer during interrogation which has been taken
down in writing. The confessional part of such statement is
inadmissible and only the part which distinctly leads to
discovery of fact is admissible in evidence as laid down by this
Court in State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya [State of
U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya, 1960 SCC OnLine SC 8 : AIR 1960
SC 1125] .
62. Thus, when the investigating officer steps into
the witness box for proving such disclosure statement, he would
be required to narrate what the accused stated to him. The
investigating officer essentially testifies about the conversation
held between himself and the accused which has been taken
down into writing leading to the discovery of incriminating
fact(s).
63. As per Section 60 of the Evidence Act, oral
evidence in all cases must be direct. The section leaves no
ambiguity and mandates that no secondary/hearsay evidence
can be given in case of oral evidence, except for the
circumstances enumerated in the section. In case of a person
who asserts to have heard a fact, only his evidence must be
given in respect of the same.
67. Similar view was taken by this Court
in Ramanand v. State of U.P. [Ramanand v. State of U.P., (2023)
16 SCC 510 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1396] , wherein this Court
held that mere exhibiting of memorandum prepared by the
investigating officer during investigation cannot tantamount to
proof of its contents. While testifying on oath, the investigating
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.708 of 2017 dt.30-01-2025
officer would be required to narrate the sequence of events
which transpired leading to the recording of the disclosure
statement."
40. From the aforesaid observation made by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, it can be said that the statement of accused
recorded by Police officer, under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, is
basically a memorandum of confession of the accused recorded by
the investigating officer during interrogation which has been taken
down in writing. The confessional part of such statement is
inadmissible and only the part which distinctly leads to discovery of
fact is admissible in evidence. Therefore, when the investigating
officer steps into the witness box for proving such disclosure
statement, he would be required to narrate what the accused stated to
him thereby the investigating officer essentially testifies about the
conversation held between himself and the accused which has been
taken down into writing leading to the discovery of incriminating
fact.
40.1. Further, from the decision rendered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mustkeem (supra), it can be said that
what is important is the discovery of the material object at the
disclosure of the accused. However, such disclosure alone would not
automatically lead to the conclusion that the offence was also
committed by the accused. In fact, thereafter burden lies on the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.708 of 2017 dt.30-01-2025
prosecution to establish a close link between discovery of the
material objects and it's use in the commission of the offence.
41. Keeping in view the aforesaid decisions rendered
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, if the evidence as discussed
hereinabove is once again examined, we are of the view that when
the prosecution has failed to prove that victim Ranjeet died because
of homicidal death and nature of injury sustained by the victim as
well as the cause of the death of victim, it is immaterial that the knife
is discovered at the instance of accused/appellant Raja Kumar @
Rala. Merely because knife has been discovered at his instance, it
cannot be presumed that the said knife is used for killing the victim
Ranjeet Kumar.
42. Thus, we are of the view that, in the present case,
the prosecution has failed to prove that the victim has been
kidnapped by the present appellants. The prosecution has also failed
to prove that the appellants have killed the victim Ranjeet Kumar.
The link to connect the appellants with the incident in question is
missing and the prosecution has failed to complete the chain of
circumstances from which it can be established that the present
appellants must have committed the alleged offences.
43. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the present case, we are of the view that the Trial court has
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.708 of 2017 dt.30-01-2025
committed an error while passing the impugned judgment and order
and, therefore, the same is required to be quashed and set aside.
CONCLUSION:-
44. Accordingly, the impugned common judgment of
conviction dated 06.03.2017 and order of sentence dated 16.03.2017
passed by learned 6th Additional District and Sessions Judge, West
Champaran at Bettiah in Sessions Trial No. 59 of 2014, arising out
of Bettiah Town P.S. Case No. 572 of 2013 (G.R. No. 3979 of 2013)
are quashed and set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges
levelled against them by the learned Trial Court.
45. The appellant namely Raja Kumar @ Raja (in
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 855 of 2017) is on bail. He is
discharged from the liabilities of his bail bonds.
46. The appellants namely Shobha Devi (in Criminal
Appeal (DB) No. 708/2017) and Bal Kunwar Mahto (in Criminal
Appeal (DB) No. 808/2017) are directed to be released from jail
custody forthwith, if their presence is not required in any other case.
47. All the appeals stand allowed.
48. Before parting with the appeal, we record our
appreciation for the able assistance rendered by Mr. Krishna Kant
Pandey, learned Amicus Curiae.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.708 of 2017 dt.30-01-2025
49. The Patna High Court, Legal Services
Committee is, hereby, directed to pay ₹ 3,000 (Rupees Three
Thousand) to Mr. Krishna Kant Pandey, learned Amicus Curiae, in
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 708 of 2017 as consolidated fee for the
services rendered by him.
(Vipul M. Pancholi, J)
(Alok Kumar Pandey, J)
Sachin/-
AFR/NAFR A.F.R.
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 15.02.2025
Transmission Date 15.02.2025
