The importance of witness identification and the requirement for substantial evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT

Uday Umesh Lalit, J. - Leave granted.

2. This appeal challenges the final judgment and order dated 21.10.2020 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.882 of 2012.

3. In the instant case, crime was registered pursuant to First Information Report No.148/2011 dated 12.03.2011 lodged with Sadar Police Station, District Hazaribagh, Jharkhand in respect of offence punishable under Section 364-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC" for short).

4. The crime was registered pursuant to the statement made by Vivek Vinayaka (PW1). The relevant portion of the statement was as under:

"I give my statement voluntarily before the Sadar Police Station Incharge (Station House Officer) that Dr. Lalit Jain son of Late Gopi Lal Jain, resident of Subhash Marg, Police Station Sadar, District H. Bagh is my uncle. For the last number of years, at about 4.30 a.m. he used to go at a Lake for walk. Today i.e. on 11.3.11 in the morning, Dr. Lalit Jain, aged about 56 years, left the home at about 5 a.m. for walk at a Beach (Lake). We waited for him upto 7 a.m. When he did not return at home, we his family members, started enquiring from his friends etc. On enquiry it was learnt that today my uncle did not meet the persons with whom he used to walk. Relatives were also contacted but his whereabouts remained untraceable. At about 8.45 and 9.40 two phone calls were received from my uncle Lalit Jain's Mobile No. 9955500606, made by his kidnappers, on residence phone number 225019, according to which kidnappers have kidnapped Dr. Lalit Jain for ransom and the amount of Rs. 20 lakh (Rupees Twenty lakhs only) has been demanded by the kidnappers. Kidnappers made us to talk with uncle Lalit Jain on his mobile phone, during which uncle told that I am still alive and in pain. Kidnappers have threatened that in case the amount of ransom of Rs. twenty lakh is not paid, Dr. Lalit Jain will be killed. Uncle told on phone that at the time, he left the home in the morning, kidnappers forcibly took him in a vehicle and kidnapped him. We request the police administration that he may be got released without any harm to him."

5. On the same day, Dr. Lalit Jain was released from captivity.

6. During the course of investigation, statements of one Masood Naiyyar (later examined as PW3 in the trial) and Dr. Lalit Jain (later examined as PW2 in the trial)) were recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973("the Code" for short) on 14.03.2011 and 07.04.2011 respectively.

7. After completion of investigation, four accused persons, namely, Md. Raju, Md. Aslam, Babloo @ Manoj Kumar and Md. Noor were tried for the offence punishable under Section 364-A of the IPC in Sessions Trial No.556 of 2011 on the file of the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribag.

8. The prosecution examined Vivek Vinayaka, the informant, as PW1. His examination did not deal with anything substantial either as regards the identity of the accused involved or with regard to any other important facet of the matter. The victim Dr. Lalit Jain was examined as PW2. In his examination-in-chief, he stated that while he was held captive, the accused were referring to each other by certain names, namely, Noor, Aslam, Sonu and Babloo. However, in his cross-examination, the witness accepted that he had not seen the faces of the accused. Masood Naiyyar, who was examined as PW3, did not support the prosecution case. He went to the extent of denying having made any statement under Section 164 of the Code. He did not recognize or identify any of the accused. The Judicial Magistrates who had recorded the statements of PW2 Dr. Lalit Jain and PW3 Masood Naiyyar were independently examined as PWs 4 and 5 in the trial.

9. Considering the evidence on record, the Trial Court by its judgment and order dated 14.08.2012 found all the four accused to be guilty under Section 364-A of the IPC and by subsequent order dated 16.08.2012, the Trial Court imposed the punishment of rigorous imp