Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ashok Bhushan, Navin Sinha, JJ.
SANJAY RAJAK – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF BIHAR – RESPONDENT(S)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 1070 OF 2017
Decided On : 22-07-2019
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 364(A) – Kidnapping and murder of child – Life sentence – Circumstantial evidence – Co-accused has been acquitted by High Court on the reasoning that his identity as abductor could not be established and dock identification was doubtful – Prosecution has not chosen to challenge acquittal – Mere acquittal of a co-accused in facts and circumstances of case can be of no benefit to appellant – Belongings of deceased victim were recovered from house of appellant – Appellant offered no explanation about recoveries, except for denying the same – It is not an invariable rule of criminal jurisprudence that failure of Police to recover corpus delicti will render prosecution case doubtful entitling accused to acquittal on benefit of doubt – It is only one of relevant factors to be considered along with all other attendant facts and circumstances to arrive at a finding based on reasonability and probability based on normal human prudence and behavior – In the facts and circumstances of present case, failure of Police to recover dead body is not much of consequence in absence of any explanation by appellant both with regard to victim last being seen with him coupled with recovery from his house of belongings of deceased – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 7, 8, 9 and 12)
Facts of the Case:
Appellant assails his sentence and conviction under Section 364(A) I.P.C to rigorous imprisonment for life with a default stipulation. Co-accused convicted by Trial Court has been acquitted by High Court. Consequently, appellant has been acquitted of charge under Section 120B I.P.C.
Findings of Court:
In facts and circumstances of present case, failure of Police to recover dead body is not much of consequence in absence of any explanation by appellant both with regard to victim last being seen with him coupled with the recovery from his house of belongings of deceased.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
Key Points: - The court held that mere acquittal of a co-accused can be of no benefit to the appellant. (!) - Failure of police to recover corpus delicti does not automatically render the prosecution case doubtful or entitle the accused to acquittal; it is one of several factors to consider. (!) - In the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed, with the conviction under Section 364A IPC upheld and sentence maintained. (!)
JUDGMENT
NAVIN SINHA, J.
The appellant assails his sentence and conviction under Section 364(A) I.P.C to rigorous imprisonment for life with a default stipulation. Co-accused Balram convicted by the Trial Court has been acquitted by the High Court. Consequently, the appellant has been acquitted of the charge under Section 120B I.P.C.
2. The victim, according to the prosecution case was a school going child aged about 5-6 years. According to the allegations, he is said to have been kidnapped from the school on 12.04.2007 at about 12:15 pm. by the co-accused Balram. The appellant and the co-accused were last seen together along with the victim. In their confessional statement both the accused disclosed that after kidnapping the child they had killed him and buried the corpse in the bed of river Saryu at Chhapra. The police did not make any effort to recover the body. The belongings of the deceased victim were recovered from the house of the appellant.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that according to PW-10, the classmate of the deceased, co-accused Balram had kidnapped him from the school. PW-11 and PW-12, the parents of the victim had further deposed that ransom calls were made by Balram. Acquittal of the co-accused makes the conviction of the appellant unsustainable. Reliance on PWs. 5, 8 and 9 that the victim was last seen with the appellant is based on a preponderance of probabilities only. PW-5 had deposed having seen the appellant along with Balram and the victim. The prosecution case against the appellant is based on circumstantial evidence with the link in the chain of events being incomplete. The failure to take any step for recovery of the dead body leaves it open to doubt whether any such incident of kidnapping had occurred or not. Reliance in support of the submissions was placed on Sattatiya alias Satish Rajanna Kartalla vs. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 3 SCC 210, Lohit Kaushal vs. State of Haryana, (2009) 17 SCC 106 and Iqbal and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 6 SCC 623.
4. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the acquittal of coaccused Balram is irrelevant in the nature of the evidence available against the appellant. His conviction therefore calls for no interference.
5. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties and carefully perused the materials on record. PW-10, aged about 8 years and a classmate of the victim deposed that while both of them were standing at the gate of the school at about 12 o’clock, a man with his face covered with a napkin approached the victim and told him that his father was calling him. The victim addressed him as “uncle uncle”. The man took the school bag of the child on his shoulder, fed him ice-cream and took the victim away. PW-11 and PW-12 Manoj Kumar, the parents of the victim have deposed that the acquitted accused Balram had worked as a servant in their house earlier. In the aforesaid facts, the significance of the victim addressing Balram as “Uncle! Uncle!”, cannot be lost sight of and unfortunately did not fall for consideration by the High Court at all. Being acquainted with the co-accused, the child naturally went along without any qualms in this background.
6. PW-11 and PW-12 deposed that Balram had made calls on mobile demanding ransom. Balram having worked earlier in the house of the witness, we find no infirmity in their statement of having recognised his voice. Every individual has a distinctive style of speaking which makes identification by those acquainted possible. Identification of a known person by voice in the darkness has been well recognized in criminal jurisprudence. Even if a person tries to camouflage his voice in one call, given the limitations of human nature there will be a tendency to state certain words or sentences in an inimitable style exposing the identity. The High Court without considering the aforesaid factors, unfortunately granted acquittal opining that no recorded voice sample was available.
7. PW-5,
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
