Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J
1. Instant Death Reference No. 04 of 2019, Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1061 of 2019, Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1093 of 2019 and Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1114
of 2019 arise out of the common judgment of conviction dated 24.09.2019 and order of sentence dated 26.09.2019 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge-II, Bokaro in Sessions Trial No.230 of 2014, whereby and where under appellants have been convicted for the offence under Sections
364(A), 302, 201 and 120 B of the IPC and sentenced to death under Section 302 of the IPC.
2. Matter involves kidnapping for ransom of a minor boy, who was later killed after payment of ransom amount in order to eliminate the evidence of
crime.
3. Sudhanshu Kumar @ Ankit aged 11 years left his home situated at Sector IVC, Quarter No.3036, Bokaro Steel City for tuition classes on
26.11.2013 at 4 O’ Clock in the afternoon, and did not return thereafter. His fatherâ€"informant lodged a missing report with the Sector IV Police
Station, which was entered as Station Diary Entry No.683/13.
4. On 28.11.2013 a ransom demand of Rupees Twenty Lakh was made from SIM No.8292913339 following which Bokaro (Chas) Sector IV P.S.
Case No.210/13 was registered on 29.11.2013 under Section 364A/34 of the IPC against unknown. Later on, Sections 302, 201, 120B of IPC were
added. During investigation, the dead body of the kidnapped boy was recovered on the basis of the disclosure statement.
5. Police on investigation, submitted charge sheet under Sections 364A, 302, 201/120B of the IPC against the appellants namely Sanjay Kumar,
Sanjeev Kumar and Vivek Kumar. One of the co-accused Satish Kumar Mishra was found to be a juvenile in conflict with law and his case was
transferred to the Juvenile Justice Board.
6. The appellants were put on trial for the offence under Sections 364A, 302, 201/120B of the IPC. Altogether 14 witnesses were examined on behalf
of the prosecution and relevant documents (different seizure lists, post-mortem report, call detail report, disclosure statement, CCTV footage) were
adduced into evidence and marked as Exhibit 1 â€" 42/1. Material exhibits which included ransom amount recovered from the accused persons, three
mobile sets, school bag, tiffin box etc. of the deceased were made material Exhibits Iâ€" VIII.
7. From a plain reading of the evidence on record, it is evident that there is no direct eye witness to the commission of kidnapping or murder, and the
case rests on circumstantial evidence, and the judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellants is based on circumstantial evidence.
ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS
8. It is argued by learned Counsel appearing on behalf of appellant â€"Vivek Kumar that as per the content of the confessional statement, he was not
involved in the murder and his role was confined to kidnapping only. At best knowledge of death of victim can be imputed to the deceased, but from
this an inference that he was involved in the murder cannot be drawn against him for returning of conviction under Section 302 or 201 of the IPC.
9. With regard to recovery of the Rs.1,50,000/- on disclosure of Vivek, it is argued that this amount was received by him from Satish Mishra as stated
by him in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.
10. With regard to the recovery of the ransom amount with signature on some of the currency notes of PW-1, it is argued that none of the prosecution
witnesses have stated that they had put their signature on the G.C notes.
11. Recovery of the dead body was made on 07.12.2013, but the accused persons had been taken into custody much before that is on 04.12.2013,
whereas the dead body was recovered on 07.12.2013. There is no explanation of three days delay in recovery of the dead body of the deceased boy
after recording the confessional statement of the accused persons.
12. It is argued on behalf of appellant â€" Sanjay Kumar Rajak that there are contradictory version with regard to his place of arrest which renders
subsequent disclosure statement doubtful. CCTV footage of the car showing the movement of the car at Barhi tool plaza, towards Patna and returning
from there are inconclusive, as it does not establish the identity of the occupants of car. The said footage has not been duly proved.
13. It is argued by the learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant â€"Sanjeev Kumar Singh that there is noÂ
direct or circumstantial evidence against him. Mobile SIM, by which the call was made, was issued in the name of the mother of the juvenile
Satish Mishra. P.W.-9 is the seizure witness who has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile.
14. On the point of sentence, it is argued that death sentence has been imposed without following the guidelines as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme
Court with regard to the prospect of reformation of the accused persons who were in their 20’s at the time of commission of offence. Only
‘crime’ has been considered and not the ‘criminals’ while awarding the sentence. Aggravating and mitigating circumstance have not
been considered and the salutary guidelines as laid down by the Apex Court has not been followed. Reliance in this regard is placed on Manoj &
Others Versus State of M.P., (2023) 2 SCC 353 wherein the following observation was made.
52. It is pertinent to point out that this Court in Anil v. State of Maharashtra [Anil v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 4 SCC 69 : (2014) 2 SCC (Cri) 266] has in
fact directed criminal courts to call for additional material : (SCC p. 86, para 33)
“33. … Many a times, while determining the sentence, the courts take it for granted, looking into the facts of a particular case, that the accused would be a
menace to the society and there is no possibility of reformation and rehabilitation, while it is the duty of the court to ascertain those factors, and the State is
obliged to furnish materials for and against the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of the accused. The facts, which the courts deal with, in a given case,
cannot be the foundation for reaching such a conclusion, which, as already stated, calls for additional materials. We, therefore, direct that the criminal courts,
while dealing with the offences like Section 302IPC, after conviction, may, in appropriate cases, call for a report to determine, whether the accused could be
reformed or rehabilitated, which depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.â€
(emphasis supplied)
We hereby fully endorse and direct that this should be implemented uniformly, as further elaborated above, for conviction of offences that carry the possibility of
death sentence.
Â
ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE STATE
15. Learned Counsel on behalf of the State has defended the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. It is argued that matter involves a coldly
planned and ruthlessly executed act of kidnapping for ransom and to remove the evidence, minor child was killed, dismembered and his dead body
disposed of in a desolate jungle area. The dead body and other articles like his school bags etc. were recovered on the disclosure statement made by
the accused persons. Considering the modus operandi of crime, there can be only circumstantial evidence. The factum of recovery of the dead body
on the disclosure statement is additionally corroborated by other evidences like ransom calls being made from the mobile number which was in active
use of the accused persons by changing the SIM cards in it.
16. On the point of sentence, it is argued that there is a legislative intent to keep death sentence in the penal code, which has to be awarded
considering the nature and motive of offence, background of the victim of the offence and the manner in which it was executed. Here the minor
school going boy was kidnapped for ransom and killed, even after the amount was paid. The act speaks volumes about the diabolical manner in which
it was committed. The case is fit for death sentence in view of the ratio laid down in Shatrughna Baban Meshram Versus State of Maharshtra,
(2021) 1 SCC 596; Deepak Rai Versus State of Bihar, (2013) 10 SCC 421 para 48.
FINDINGS
17. Crime is product of complex life situations and reflects corresponding complexities in its motive, conception and execution. There are crimes which
are result of sudden spurt of passion, and there are crimes which are coldly planned involving multiple persons and deftly executed taking all
precaution to cover the trail of evidence left behind. Evidence Act therefore, does not propose a straight jacket formula for proof of a fact, and adopts
a “prudent man†test in its definition under Section 3. It has been held in M. Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P., (2001) 1 SCC 691
“15. The word “proof†need be understood in the sense in which it is defined in the Evidence Act because proof depends upon the admissibility of
evidence. A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a
prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. This is the definition given for the word
“proved†in the Evidence Act. What is required is production of such materials on which the court can reasonably act to reach the supposition that a fact
exists. Proof of the fact depends upon the degree of probability of its having existed. The standard required for reaching the supposition is that of a prudent man
acting in any important matter concerning him. Fletcher Moulton L.J. in Hawkins v. Powells Tillery Steam Coal Co. Ltd. [(1911) 1 KB 988 : 1911 WN 53]
observed like this:
“Proof does not mean proof to rigid mathematical demonstration, because that is impossible; it must mean such evidence as would induce a reasonable man to
come to a particular conclusion.â€
(emphasis supplied)
18. For a crime to be proved, it is not necessary that the crime must be seen to have been committed and must, in all circumstances be proved by
direct ocular evidence. Those persons who had not seen its commission, fact in issue can be proved by circumstantial evidence. The standard of proof
required to convict the person on circumstantial evidence is well established by a series of decisions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court. According to that
standard, the circumstances relied upon in support of the conviction, must be fully established and the chain of evidence furnished by those
circumstances must be so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused.
19. The instant case presents a tragic story of kidnapping for ransom and murder of a minor school going student. Bokaro Steel City is a famous
educational hub for school education where students from neighboring states come for quality education. Informant (P.W.-11) is a resident of District
Rohtas, State of Bihar, a farmer by occupation, who had left his son Ankit (victim) with his relation Mani Jee Singh (P.W.-1) at Bokaro where he was
pursuing his studies.
20. Adjudication in criminal cases involves proof of criminal offence, and complicity of the accused in the said crime. In the present case, fact in issue
can be divided into two parts. First is the commission of kidnapping for ransom followed by murder and second is proof of charges of the accused
person in it.
21. With regard to the first part i.e. commission of crime, it has been deposed by the informant (P.W.-11) in para 1 that on 26.11.2013 in the evening
at 5.30, Mani Jee had himself dropped his son for tuition and when he went to take back the child, it was informed by Indu Madam that he had left ten
minutes ago. He has further narrated that ransom call was received from one mobile number 8292913339 with a demand of Rupees Twenty Lakh on
27.11.2013. On 29.11.2013, another call was received from mobile number 9905807389, and on much persuasion they agreed to release the victim boy
for Rupees Five Lakh.
22. The kidnappers directed him to make the payment near a temple at Taregna (a small station in Bihar), where they went by Hatia Patna Express
and the cash amount of Rupees Five Lakh kept in a bag was placed at the designated place. On 30.11.2013, the informant along with Rakesh Kumar
and Mani Jee and two other persons went to Taregna and reached there by evening. Another call was made by mobile number 7352801068 on which
they confirmed the payment of the amount and they were instructed to return to Bokaro.
23. They returned back to Bokaro, but the child was not returned.
24. This part of the deposition of the informant has remained undemolished in the cross-examination. It is further corroborated by the testimony of
P.W. 1â€" Mani Jee Singh in whose house the victim / deceased was living at Bokaro and P.W. 3 â€" Rakesh Kumar Singh, who had gone to
Taregna along with the informant. P.W-1 in para 17 has deposed that school bag was recovered on 06.12.2013 and the dead body was on 07.12.2013.
The consistent account of P.W. 1, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4, that dead body was recovered on 07.12.2013 is duly proved by the testimony of Investigating
Officer, Nagendra Roy â€" P.W. 12 and documentary evidences of ransom calls being made.
25. After recovery of the dead body, post-mortem was conducted by the Medical Board comprising of Dr. Ajit Kumar Singh ((P.W. 6), Dr. Bikash
Kumar (P.W. 5) and Dr. Paramjeet Kaur (P.W. 8). The Medical Board proved the post-mortem examination report which has been marked as
Exhibit 6/II. The Board opined that it was difficult to give cause of death as the body was almost devoid of muscles and organs. The Board found the
body in about four parts. Trunk, Pelvis and legs in one fragment, skull and neck in another, left upper limb in another, right upper limb was in fourth
fragment. They all correspond anatomically with one another. Still due to presence of fracture of tracheal ring, suspicion point to throttling as a cause
of death.
26. From the above evidence, we are of the view that kidnapping for ransom, payment of the ransom amount of Rupees Five Lakh at a
desolate place near temple at Taregna on 30.11.2013 and recovery of the dead body on 07.12.2013, is proved beyond any reasonable
doubt.
27. Coming to author of this ghastly crime, considering the dexterous planning and modus operandi in which it was carried out by multiple actors
having inter-State links, we find force in the argument on behalf of the State, that there can be seldom any direct eye witness in such cases and the
case is perforce based on circumstantial evidence.
28. The main evidences are the three mobile SIM numbers through which the kidnappers contacted the informant and his family members, the
recovery of ransom amount from the accused persons, disclosure statement on the basis of which the dead body and the articles of the deceased
were recovered, evidence of car which was used in the crime and its accident, DNA profiling of the strands of hair seized from the towel used in the
crime, and the call detail reports which establish the identity of the mobile and IMEI numbers from which the calls were made and the tower locations
of the caller where the ransom amount was received.
Recovery of ransom amount from the accused persons.
29. As per the testimony of Investigating Officer (P.W. 12), all the three appellants/accused were arrested from Bokaro on 04.12.2013. Vivek Kumar
was arrested on the said date at 12.15 hours from B.S. City, as deposed by I.O. (P.W. 12) at para 49. During investigation statement of one Deepak
Kumar Singh was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Exhibit 7) wherein he stated that Vivek had given him cash on 04.12.2013 in the evening at
5.30 saying that the said amount has been deposited in his father’s Account and said that he will take the amount back from him after returning
from the railway station. When he reached railway station, he was apprehended by police along with Vivek and from there they were taken to the
house of co-accused Satish and Sanjeev. Rs.2,50,000/- was recovered from the house of Satish, Rs.80,000/- and Rs.20,000/- was recovered from the
house of Sanjeev and Sanjay respectively. Deepak Kumar Singh has been examined as P.W. 9 wherein he has identified his signature on the seizure
list which were marked as exhibits since before, but has not supported the factum of recovery in his presence and was accordingly declared hostile.
Seizure of cash has been duly proved by the Investigating Officer and this witness has identified the signatures on the seizure list, therefore, there is no
reason to disbelieve the factum of seizure of cash. Law is settled that search and seizure cannot be disbelieved merely because the seizure list
witnesses turn hostile, when it is proved by other prosecution evidence. If the investigating officer can be accepted as direct eye witness, as in the
present case, if he witnesses a particular evidential fact. Refer to Modan Singh Versus State of Rajasthan, (1978) 4 SCC 435; State (NCT of
Delhi) Versus Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 SCC 600.
30. P.W.-4 has deposed that on disclosure statement of Vivek Kumar Rs.1,50,000/- was recovered from the house. He has proved Exhibit â€" 4, 4/I
and 4/II and Ext 5. On perusal of Exhibit 5, it transpires that Rs.1,50,000/- was seized from the Quarter of Deepak Kumar on the disclosure statement
made by Vivek Kumar (Exhibit 17). Deepak Kumar has identified his signature on the seizure list which has been marked as Exhibit 4/1 and signature
of another seizure list witness Jitendra Prasad has been identified and marked as Exhibit 4/II. It was Rupees One Thousand denomination hundred
piece notes and another bundle of Rs.500/- denomination (100 piece). The rapper of Allahabad Bank, Sector IV, DPS Branch, Bokaro was there and
on four currency notes initial of M. Singh was found to be marked.
31. P.W.-4 has further deposed that on the same day at 15.40 hours, appellant Sanjeev Kumar was arrested at 2.50 p.m. and cash of Rs.80,000/-was
recovered from his house, which was seized on the same day of arrest at 15.40 hours. He has proved the seizure list and signatures thereon which
have been marked as Exhibits 4/VI, 4/VII, 4/VIII and Ext-5/II. In one of the currency note, initial of M. Singh was also found. Signatures of the
seizure list witnesses Deepak Kumar and Jitendra Prasad, have also been proved.
32. Appellant â€" Sanjay Kumar was also arrested on 04.12.2013 and Rs.20,000/- was seized from his conscious physical possession and seizure list
was prepared which has been marked as Exhibit 5/III. Signatures of the seizure list witnesses have been proved and marked as Exhibits 4/IX, 4/X and
4/XI. In two of the currency notes, initial of M. Singh was found.
33. Similar recoveries were made on the disclosure statement made by the juvenile Satish Kumar Mishra.
34. Confessional statements of appellants â€" Vivek Kumar, Sanjeev Kumar and Sanjay Kumar Rajak, were recorded which have been adduced into
evidence and marked as Exhibits 17, 21 and 23 respectively. Law is settled that bald confessional statement made to police, is inadmissible into
evidence in view of the interdict under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. However, when on the basis of the said statement, any fact is deposed to as
discovered in consequence to an information received from a person, accused of an offence, in the custody of a Police Officer, so much of such
information, is admissible as evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
35. In the present case, confessional statement of Vivek Kumar (Exhibit-17) was recorded on 04.12.2013 wherein he informed that after committing
the offence of murder, ransom amount was received and part of it Rs.1,50,000/-was entrusted by him to Deepak Kumar, was seized from his house
and marked as Exhibit 5.
36. Sanjeev in his confessional statement (Exhibit 21), disclosed two facts, first was regarding, Rs.80,000/- kept with him, and second was about the
disposal of the dead body of kidnapped boy.
37. Defence plea that the said amount was not part of ransom amount is not sustainable amount, for the reason that no plausible explanation has been
offered to account for the same and no evidence has been led to establish that the said amount had been delivered to them by someone else. Further,
some of the notes had been signed while being given as ransom and those currency notes have been adduced into evidence and marked as Exhibit â€
34 & 35 series. P.W.-1 in para 16 has deposed that he had left his mark on the currency notes before the ransom amount was kept at the designated
place in the night at 9 ‘O’clock.
38. It has been deposed by P.W. 1 that in the ransom amount, he had put his initials in 28 currency notes which were seized from the accused
persons. They have been identified by P.W. 1 and marked as Exhibit 1 â€" 1/27. In para 53 he deposed that he had signed over the currency notes. In
some of the currency notes and rapper of bundle, he had put his initial. Part of these currency notes were seized from the appellants
Recovery of dead body on disclosure statement
39. Sanjay Kumar Rajak, in his disclosure statement (Exhibit 23) stated that the kidnapped boy was strangulated by towel and the dead body was
disposed near in a bush at some distance from GT Road.
40. On the basis of disclosure statement of the appellants, on 06.12.2013, school bag of the deceased was recovered on pointing by the accused
persons and on 07.12.2013, dead body was recovered.
41. The place from which the dead body was found, was about more than 120 km. from Bokaro in a desolate forest area. As per the post-mortem
examination report conducted on 08.12.2013, the skeletal remains, there was no muscle. Identity of dead body of kidnapped boy was established by
DNA report (Exhibit-42) and wearing apparels and school bag which was seized from the place of occurrence.
42. The boy was kidnapped on 26.11.2013 and was strangulated to death on 28.11.2013. Since the dead body was left in open, therefore, there was
every possibility that it would have been removed from place of disposal by wild animals, which resulted the delay in tracing the dead body on the
disclosure statement made by the accused persons.
Seizure of car used in crime
43. A Swift Dzire car bearing registration no.JH09K-0511 was used in the crime for taking the victim to Patna. This vehicle was seized on the basis
of the disclosure statement made by the three appellants. (Exhibit 31)
44. Owner of the car â€" Santosh Kumar (P.W. 2) has deposed that car had been taken by Satish Kumar Mishra (juvenile). He has proved his
signature on the production-cum-seizure list marked as exhibits-3 to 3/II The CCTV footage of Barhi Toll Plaza (Exhibit 25 and 26), establish that car
moved towards Patna on 26.11.2013 and returned on 27.11.2013. This car met with an accident, has been proved by deposition of P.W. 2 at para-5.
Digital footprints
45. Three mobile SIMS were used by the kidnappers to make calls to the informant and his brother-in-law in connection with the ransom demand and
its payment. In order to cover the track, accused persons were changing the SIM card from the mobile being used.
46. Ransom calls were made by changing sims in different mobile sets which will evident from the fact that on 27.11.2013 call was made by SIM
No.8292913339 from mobile having IMEI Number 358010044738460 and the same set was used by SIM No7.352801068 on 26.11.2013 at 10.45 a.m.
As per the informant, (P.W.11) after they had delivered ransom at Taregna, a call was received from mobile number 7352801068 confirming the
payment of amount. This SIM was issued in the name of Vivek Kumar Singh as deposed by the I.O. (P.W. 12) in para 28. The photocopy of the
application form for issuance of this SIM in the name of Vivek Kumar Singh has been marked as X/II for identificatio.n This establishes the identity
and connection of Vivek Kumar as person involved in the ransom call. Location of this mobile is shown at Taregna, Gola Road, near Devi Sthan on
30th November, 2013 at 20:51:49 hours, which shows that he was present in the area where the ransom amount was delivered.
DNA Profiling
47. As per the DNA report (Exhibit 42), three hair strands taken from the Gamchha, seized from the place of occurrence matched with the blood of
accused Sanjay Kumar. This Gamchha (Exhibit 5/IV) was seized from the place of occurrence from the disclosure statement made by Sanjay Kumar
(Exhibit 23).
48. From the above discussion, it is evident that ransom amount delivered at Taregna was recovered from these three appellants. On their disclosure
statements, the school bag and the dead body of the deceased was recovered from a desolate jungle area which is at a distance of more than 120 km
from the place where the victim was kidnapped. Hair strands were found on the towel (Gamchha) used in the crime and seized from the place of
occurrence. The said hair strands of DNA profiling matched the blood of appellant Sanjay Kumar. One of the mobile sim by which the kidnappers
contacted the informant was found to be issued in the name of appellant Vivek Kumar. Car owner of Swift Dezire has deposed that he had given the
car used in crime to one of the co-accused (juvenile), which later met with the accident.
49. Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with a case where the dead body was recovered on the basis of disclosure statement of the accused,
held in State of Maharashtra v. Suresh, (2000) 1 SCC 471,
26. We too countenance three possibilities when an accused points out the place where a dead body or an incriminating material was concealed without stating
that it was concealed by himself. One is that he himself would have concealed it. Second is that he would have seen somebody else concealing it. And the third is
that he would have been told by another person that it was concealed there. But if the accused declines to tell the criminal court that his knowledge about the
concealment was on account of one of the last two possibilities the criminal court can presume that it was concealed by the accused himself. This is because the
accused is the only person who can offer the explanation as to how else he came to know of such concealment and if he chooses to refrain from telling the court as
to how else he came to know of it, the presumption is a well-justified course to be adopted by the criminal court that the concealment was made by himself. Such
an interpretation is not inconsistent with the principle embodied in Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
50. It was incumbent on the part of the appellants to offer some explanation regarding their knowledge about the location of the dead body of the
minor boy. As discussed above, kidnapping for ransom of Sudhansu Kumar @ Ankit aged about 11 years, who had gone to attend his tuition classes in
Bokaro Steel City, has been proved beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt. Regarding the perpetrators of the offence, prosecution has succeeded to
prove that dead body of the kidnapped boy was recovered on the basis of disclosure statement made by these appellants. There is no explanation as to
how this fact came to the knowledge of the appellants regarding the location of the dead body at a distance of more than 120 Km. in a jungle area.
The ransom amount which was delivered at Taregna in Bihar, was also recovered from the appellants. The car which was used in the crime, had met
with an accident, was released to the car owner â€" Santosh Kumar (P.W. 2), who deposed that the car had been taken by co-conspirator â€" Satish
Kumar Mishra (Juvenile). The towel which was used in strangulating the kidnapped boy, was also recovered from near the dead body on the pointing
by the appellant Sanjay Kumar, on which three strands of hair were found which was sent for DNA profiling. As per the DNA report, it matched with
the blood sample of the appellant â€" Sanjay Kumar. One of the mobile SIM by which the kidnappers had contacted the informant, was found to be
issued in the name of Vivek Kumar.
51. No explanation has been offered by the appellants with regard to these incriminating evidences appearing against them. No hypothesis has been
put forward on behalf of defence to escape from irresistible conclusion that appellants had under a criminal conspiracy, kidnapped the minor boy for
ransom and had killed him in order to eliminate the evidence. The appellants instead of making an attempt to explain or clarify the incriminating
circumstance and inculpating them in the crime, have simply offered evasive denial and false explanations in their statements under Section 313 of the
Cr.P.C. It has been held in Joseph v. State of Kerala, (2000) 5 SCC 197 that falsity of defence plea and false answers given to court, can be treated
as a missing link in the chain of circumstances.
52. In cases of criminal conspiracy, there cannot be a direct evidence and the Courts have to fall back on circumstantial evidence. We are of the view
that from the proved circumstances, no conclusion except guilt of the appellant can be drawn. On the basis of the evidence on record and for the
reasons discussed above, we are of the considered view that prosecution has succeeded to prove the charge against the appellants of kidnapping for
ransom and thereafter, of committing his murder to eliminate the evidence. All this was committed under a criminal conspiracy, where the appellants
acted in tandem to execute the conspiracy. In criminal conspiracy, co-conspirators act as principal and agent to each other and anything said, done or
written by each of them bind each other. Each proved circumstance is not to be seen in isolation but has to be looked into totality. We are of the view
that prosecution has proved the charges against the appellants.
53. The judgment of conviction, is therefore, affirmed under Sections 364A, 302, 201 and 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code.
54. On the point of sentence, there cannot be a graver offence of killing an innocent minor helpless child and that too without any past enmity or
provocation. Nature of offence is further aggravated when the offence is committed kidnapping for ransom money and killing of a child that too for
eliminating evidence. Situation is worst confounded when the crime is committed under a criminal conspiracy having inter State links. It is not only the
child who lost his life, but it also crushed the dreams of his parents who are farmers and had left their child with a close relative in a city so that he can
pursue his education and make his career. No civilized society can countenance such crime.
55. Coming to “Criminal testâ€, mere age cannot be a ground to condone the savage acts of the perpetrators of heinous crime. Considering the
penalogical shift towards reformation we restrain ourselves from awarding capital punishment to the appellants, as this case will not come within the
meaning of rarest of rare case and the learned trial Court has failed to follow the guidelines as laid down in Manoj & Others (supra).
56. Sentence of Death of the Appellants is accordingly commuted to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.50,000/- under Section 302 of
the IPC. Appellants are further sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs 25,000 each under Section 364(A) and 120(B) IPC. In
case of default in payment of fine, SI of three months each. Appellants are further sentenced to RI of five years and a fine of Rs25,000/-
under Sections 201 of the IPC. In the event of default in payment of fine SI of three months. All the substantive sentences to run
concurrently.
The reference sent by the trial court being Death Reference No. 04 of 2019 to confirm the death penalty is rejected. Criminal Appeal
(D.B.) No. 1061 of 2019, Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 1093 of 2019 and Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 1114 of 2019 are dismissed with
modification of sentence.
Let the Trial Court Records be transmitted to the Court concerned along with a copy of this judgment. Result of Death Reference be also
communicated to the concerned Jail Superintendent regarding conversion of death sentence to imprisonment for life.
