SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
20th March, 1961
K. SUBBA RAO AND RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.
Deep Chand, Appellant. State of Rajasthan, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 156 of 1960
Advocates appeared
Mr. Jai Gopal Sethi, Senior Advocate (M/s. C. L. Sareen and R. L. Kohli, Advocates, with him), for Appellant; M/s. H. J. Umrigar, H. R. Khanna, Bipin Behari Lal, R. H. Dhebar, and D. Gupta, Advocates, for Respondent
CRIMINAL LAW - Kidnapping, wrongful confinement, and extortion - Evidence - Admissibility of verification proceedings conducted by Magistrate - Magistrate's testimony on identity of building where victim was confined - Magistrate's testimony on statements made by victim - Claim of privilege by witness - Enhancement of sentence.
Fact of the Case:
Suraj Bhan was abducted from his house and confined for 17 days in Deep Chand's house. During his confinement, he was forced to write letters to his father demanding ransom for his release. After receiving the ransom, Suraj Bhan was released. Deep Chand was convicted of kidnapping, wrongful confinement, and extortion.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to convict Deep Chand. The Court held that the Magistrate's testimony on the identity of the building where Suraj Bhan was confined was admissible under Section 9 of the Evidence Act, even though the Magistrate could not speak of statements made by Suraj Bhan that were not recorded in compliance with Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court also held that the High Court was justified in enhancing the sentence imposed on Deep Chand by the Sessions Judge.
Issues: 1. Whether the Magistrate's testimony on the identity of the building where Suraj Bhan was confined was admissible under Section 9 of the Evidence Act, even though the Magistrate could not speak of statements made by Suraj Bhan that were not recorded in compliance with Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Whether the High Court was justified in enhancing the sentence imposed on Deep Chand by the Sessions Judge.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Magistrate's testimony on the identity of the building where Suraj Bhan was confined was admissible under Section 9 of the Evidence Act, even though the Magistrate could not speak of statements made by Suraj Bhan that were not recorded in compliance with Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court reasoned that Section 9 of the Evidence Act makes facts which establish the identity of any thing or person whose identity is relevant, are relevant in so far as they are necessary for that purpose. The Court further reasoned that if a Magistrate speaks to facts which establish the identity of any thing, the said facts would be relevant within the meaning of S. 9 of the Evidence Act; but if the Magistrate seeks to prove statements of a person not recorded in compliance with the mandatory provisions of S. 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, such part of the evidence, though it may be relevant within the meaning of S. 9 of the Evidence Act, will have to be excluded. 2. The Court held that the High Court was justified in enhancing the sentence imposed on Deep Chand by the Sessions Judge. The Court reasoned that the Sessions Judge had awarded a disproportionately lenient sentence to Deep Chand, and that it was the duty of the High Court to rectify such an obvious error.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court's decision to convict Deep Chand.
Judgment
SUBBA RAO, J. : This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan dated August 1, 1958, confirming the Judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Churu, dated May 3, 1957, in so far as he convicted the appellant under Ss. 347, 365 and 386, I. P. C. and setting aside his order acquitting the appellant under S. 458, I. P. C., and convicting the appellant under S. 452, I. P. C. the learned Additional Sessions Judge sentenced the appellant for the offences under Ss. 347, 365 and 386, I. P. C., to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year, 2 years and 3 1/2 years respectively. The High Court enhanced the sentences in respect of the offences under Ss. 347 and 386, I. P. C., to 3 years and 8 years respectively, and also imposed a fine of Rs. 20,000/- on the appellant; the sentence in regard to the offence under S. 365, I. P. C., was confirmed. The High Court further found that the appellant was guilty under S. 352, I. P. C., also and for that offence it sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years.
2. At the outset it would be convenient to state briefly the case of the prosecution. One Kashiram, a prosperous businessman, was residing at Sidhmugh. His only son Suraj Bhan was living at Rajgarh where he was carrying on an independent business of his own. On November 12, 1954, when Suraj Bhan was at his desk in his house, somebody made an enquiry whether one Rameshwar was there, to which Suraj Bhan replied in the negative. A few minutes thereafter, two men with masks entered the room and one of them was armed with a revolver. The said two persons threatened to shoot Suraj Bhan if he made any noise and then took him outside the house where two camels were kept waiting attended by two other persons similarly masked. After covering the face of Suraj Bhan by tying a cloth round his neck, he was made to mount one of the camels. The two persons who pulled Suraj Bhan out of his house also mounted the same camel, one in front of Suraj Bhan and the other behind him. After firing some shots in the air, presumably to prevent pursuit, the said persons, along with Suraj Bhan, left the place. After riding for 3 or 4 hours, the camels were made to stop on a railway line, the said persons got down from the camel, Suraj Bhan was also made to get down, and all of them went along the railway line for 3 or 4 furlongs. Thereafter, Suraj Bhan was taken to the house of the Deep Chand, the appellant, in village Kalari and was kept there in confinement in a small room for 17 days. During the entire period he was kept blindfolded. Two or three days after the abduction, Suraj Bhan was made to write three letters to his father and put down his father s address on the envelopes. He was made to write these letters under the cover of a blanket after his bandage was removed temporarily. In the first letter he was made to write that if his father reported the matter to the police, he would not see his son again; in the second letter, he was made to inform his father that in view of the attempts made by his father to trace him, his abductors had made up their minds not to release him, but in view of his entreaties they had agreed to release him on payment of a ransom of Rs. 60,000/-; and in the third letter, he was made to write that the money should be handed over to the bearer of the letter and that he would be released on such payment. After the receipt of the first two letters by Kashi Ram, the abductors entered on the second stage of negotiations. Meanwhile, to facilitate the smooth conduct of the negotiations, on November 29, 1954, Suraj Bhan was removed to the house of one Lachhman and was confined there till his release. Kashi Ram has a son-in-law by name Shiv Bhagwan, the son of one Durga Parshad. Dhannaram and Shiv Bhagwan knew each other. Dhannaram offered to help Kashi Ram to get the release of his son. Dhannaram gave a letter addressed to Deep Chand to Durga Parshad wherein Deep Chand w
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.