IMPORTANT POINTS
Prosecution case cannot be thrown out on ground of defective investigation.
Tracing or recovering dead body is always necessary for conviction.
Conviction on suspicion cannot be sustained.

Headnote:(a) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 – A5 and A3 giving statement to police – Based thereon FIR lodged leading to recovery of dead body – If no statement was recorded from the accused, place of the dead body of deceased boy would have remained unknown – Ideally the IO should have taken the accused to the alleged place of occurrence – Omission to do so only a lapse in the investigation – Prosecution case cannot be thrown out on ground of defective investigation. (Para 19, 20, 21)
       (2003) 10 SCC 414; (2011) 3 SCC 654; (2010) 9 SCC 567 – Relied upon
       (b) Criminal trial – Accused persons denying any connection with the dead body – Although recovered based on their statements – Tracing or recovering dead body is always necessary for conviction – Courts below finding the accused guilty of kidnapping and murdering the deceased for ransom – Conviction and sentence u/s 364A, 302 and 201 IPC cannot be interfered with. (Para 22, 23)
       (c) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 364 and 302/34 – Common intention – Direct evidence seldom available – Can only be inferred from the evidence and circumstances appearing from proved facts – Jealousy of A1 with PW8, kidnapper being his brother-in-law, A1 persuading PW8 to pay ransom money even before demand made by kidnappers, snatching of gunny bag containing ransom money by kidnappers even though only A1 and A2 knew that the bag contained the money, recovery of currency note signed by PW8 from house of A1, and finally conduct of A1 during the entire period – Establishing complicity of A1 – Conviction u/s 364A and 302/34 – Need no interference. (Para 27, 28)
       (d) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 364A/120B IPC – A4 also persuading PW8 to pay ransom money – Accompanying PW8 to kidnapers’ place for paying ransom money – Conduct suspicious – However, conviction on suspicion cannot be sustained – Conviction liable to be set aside. (Para 29)
       Facts of the case:
       Vicky aged five years, son of Sunil Kumar Singh-PW8 a vegetable vendor, was kidnapped by A-3 and A-5 from near shop of PW 8 while playing.
       PW 8 was later informed about kidnapping by A-1 and A-4. Later PW8 received ransom call. As per instructions he went to pace of A-3 along with A-1, A-4 and A-2. After paying the ransom money PW 8 was informed that Vicky would return by the evening.
       However Vicky did not return but his dead body was found at some other place.
       The trial court convicted the accused Chintoo Singh (A-5) and Birendra Bhagat (A-3) under Section 364A IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.10,000/-. For his conviction under Sections 302/34 IPC, Chintoo Singh (A-5) was awarded death sentence. Sanjeet (A-2), Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1) and Sanjay (A-4) were convicted under Section 364A/120B IPC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and were imposed a fine of rupees Rs.10,000/-each with default clause. Further, Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1), Sanjay (A-4) and Birendra Bhagat (A-3) were convicted under Section 302/34 IPC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.10,000/-each with default clause. The sentences imposed on Birendra Bhagat (A-3), Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1) and Sanjay (A-4) were ordered to run concurrently.
       The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the accused persons and thereby confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on accused A-1, A-3 to A-5. The High Court converted the death sentence awarded to Chintoo Singh (A-5) as life imprisonment. Accepting the defence plea of alibi, the High Court acquitted A-2 Sanjeet.
       Finding of the Court:
       No interference is required in respect of A1, A3 and A5. A4 deserves acquittal.
       Result: Criminal Appeals No.1831/2011, 1817/2013 and 1821/2013 dismissed and Criminal Appeal No.1820/2013 allowed.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

The prosecution case cannot be dismissed solely on the ground of defective investigation. Even if there are lapses, such as not taking the accused to the place of occurrence, these do not necessarily undermine the overall case if the evidence is otherwise credible (!) (!) (!) .
The recovery or tracing of the dead body is generally necessary for conviction in murder cases. However, the absence of the dead body or lapses in recovery do not automatically result in acquittal if other evidence sufficiently establishes the guilt of the accused (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Evidence of a child's testimony, especially in cases involving minors, is considered trustworthy when the child's understanding and competence are properly ascertained and the testimony is consistent and corroborated by other evidence (!) (!) .
Identification of the accused in court, even if not during a test identification parade, can be considered reliable if the court finds the identification credible and the witness capable of understanding the questions (!) (!) .
Evidence such as recovery of currency notes with signatures, conduct of the accused, and their involvement in the sequence of events can establish their complicity and common intention in crimes like kidnapping and murder (!) (!) (!) .
Statements made by the accused, even if not admissible under certain sections of the Evidence Act, can still be relevant if they lead to the discovery of facts like the location of the dead body or other circumstances that support the case (!) (!) (!) .
The conduct of the accused, such as not reacting to evidence of their involvement or sharing common plans, can be used to infer their involvement and common intention in the commission of the offense (!) (!) .
Suspicion alone is insufficient for conviction; there must be cogent and reliable evidence linking the accused to the crime (!) (!) .
Even when investigation is not perfect, the rest of the evidence must be independently scrutinized, and lapses in investigation do not necessarily lead to acquittal if the evidence against the accused is otherwise strong (!) (!) .
The absence of the dead body or incomplete recovery does not automatically benefit the accused, as the evidence can still establish guilt through circumstantial evidence and other circumstances (!) (!) .
The courts have the authority to uphold convictions based on the totality of evidence, including eyewitness testimony, conduct, and circumstantial links, even if some procedural lapses or evidentiary issues exist (!) (!) .

Would you like a more specific legal analysis or assistance with drafting a legal opinion based on these points?

JUDGMENT

R. BANUMATHI, J.

These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 11.10.2010 passed by the Patna High Court in Criminal Appeals (DB) No.268/2008, 357/2008, 451/2008, No.156/2008 and Death Reference No.6/2008, in and by which, the High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the accused persons confirming the verdict of conviction on the charge of murder of five years old boy Vicky and dismissed the death reference by converting the death sentence of Chintoo Singh (A-5) into life imprisonment.

2. On 27.02.2006, Sunil Kumar Singh-PW8, a vegetable vendor in Paswan Chowk, lodged a complaint stating that his son Vicky aged five years was playing near PW8’s vegetable shop and Rubi Kumari aged seven years sister of the victim boy Vicky was also playing with him. At that time two unknown persons [later identified as Chintoo Singh (A-5) and Birendra Bhagat (A-3)] offered chocolates to Vicky and other children and took away Vicky saying that they would come back and drop the boy; but the boy Vicky did not come back. On the above complaint on 28.02.2006, a case was registered as P.S. Case No.105/2006 at Hazipur Town (Industrial Area), Police Station, Vaishali. Inspite of search, the missing boy could not be traced. After 5-6 days passed, Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1) and Sanjay (A-4), who were also vegetable vendors in the same market i.e. at Paswan Chowk, told PW8 that his son would come back if he would pay money. Nearly after three months of the incident, on 23.06.2006, PW8 received a phone call and the kidnappers demanded a ransom of four lakh rupees for return of his son; but PW8 expressed his helplessness to meet the demand, and the demand was reduced to two lakh rupees. Another telephone call was received by PW8 on 1.07.2006 and the final amount of ransom was fixed for Rs.1,05,000/-. On 3.07.2006, PW8 received another call from the kidnappers and PW8 informed them that he has arranged the ransom money and PW8 was asked to bring the money at New Gandak Bridge ahead of Line Hotel of Bachcha Babu at Sonepur. When PW8 expressed fear in coming alone with money, he was instructed by the kidnappers to come with his neighbours Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1) and Sanjay (A-4).

3. In order to pay the ransom money, PW8 had withdrawn Rs.80,000/-from his Savings Bank account with Bank of India at Rajendra Chowk, Hazipur and PW-8 arranged balance money from his own savings and borrowings from his father-in-law. On 4.07.2006, PW8 wrapped the ransom amount in a plastic bag and kept it in a gunny bag under the carrier of his cycle and PW8 accompanied by Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1) and Sanjay (A-4) and Sanjeet (A-2) proceeded to the place as instructed by the kidnappers. When they reached the New Gandak Bridge, Sanjeet (A-2) got down from PW8’s cycle and went inside a hut on the left side of the road and PW8 followed him. At that time two persons came out and pulled away the money from the carrier of PW8’s cycle. Sanjeet (A-2) informed PW8 that his brother-in-law-Birendra Bhagat (A-3) lives in that hut and PW8 was informed that his son would be returned by evening. Even after payment of the money, the boy was not returned. To inquire about the boy, PW8 went to the hut and learnt from the local people that Birendra Bhagat (A-3) is a criminal and the other person was identified as Chintoo Singh (A-5). On 16.08.2006, PW8 informed the investigating officer-Reeta Kumari (PW12), the names of the accused persons and also about the demand and payment of money to the kidnappers.

4. Investigating Officer (PW-12) conducted a raid at Sonepur and arrested Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1) and Sanjeet (A-2) and recorded their statement. Based on the statement of Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1), investigating officer recovered a currency note of five hundred rupee containing the name of Sunil Kumar Singh-PW8, written in green ink in the handwriting of PW8, from the house of Ranjeet Kumar Ram(A-1), which is recorded in the seizure list (Ex.18). Thereafter, the accused persons Sanjay (A-4)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2015 Supreme(SC) 421

IMPORTANT POINTSProsecution case cannot be thrown out on ground of defective investigation. Tracing or recovering dead body is always necessary for conviction.Conviction on suspicion cannot be sustained.

Cases Referred (3)

IMPORTANT POINTS
Prosecution case cannot be thrown out on ground of defective investigation.
Tracing or recovering dead body is always necessary for conviction.
Conviction on suspicion cannot be sustained.