SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(Del) 607

High Court of Delhi
G.S. SISTANI & SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, JJ.
Ram Kishan & Another – Appellant
Versus
State & Others – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 366 of 2011 & 582 of 2012
Decided On : 20-04-2015

Appearing Advocates:
For the Appearing Parties:Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP, K. Sunil, Satya Narayan, Sumeet Verma, Amit Kala, Nitika Sharma, Advocates.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for circumstantial evidence to be fully established and consistent only with the guilt of the accused. The judgment also emphasizes the need for a complete chain of evidence to exclude every hypothesis except the guilt of the accused.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code - Kidnapping and Murder - Section 364A, Section 302, Section 120B - [Kidnapping and Murder] - [Section 364A, Section 302, Section 120B] - The judgment discusses the conviction of the accused under Section 364A, Section 302, and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code for the kidnapping and murder of the victim. The court analyzed the circumstantial evidence, including ransom letters, witness testimonies, and forensic reports, to establish the guilt of the accused. The court also examined the legal principles related to criminal conspiracy and the admissibility of disclosure statements as evidence.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved the kidnapping and murder of the victim, Ashok @ Bunty, and the subsequent prosecution of the accused. The victim went missing, and ransom letters were received by the family demanding a large sum of money for his release. The police recovered the victim's dead body, and the accused were apprehended based on disclosure statements and other evidence.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the accused guilty of kidnapping and murdering the victim based on circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of ransom letters, witness testimonies, forensic reports, and DNA evidence. The court also analyzed the legal principles related to circumstantial evidence, criminal conspiracy, and burden of proof.

Issues: The issues included the admissibility of disclosure statements, the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, the establishment of criminal conspiracy, and the burden of proof in cases relying on circumstantial evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principle that circumstantial evidence must be fully established and consistent only with the guilt of the accused. It also emphasized the need for a complete chain of evidence to exclude every hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. The court considered the failure of the accused to offer a reasonable explanation as an additional link in the chain of circumstances. Additionally, the court examined the legal requirements for proving criminal conspiracy and the admissibility of disclosure statements as evidence.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal in Crl. A. No. 366/2011 and partly allowed the appeal in Crl. A. No. 582/2011, convicting the appellant under Section 364A and Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The court also discussed the legal principles related to criminal conspiracy and the burden of proof in cases relying on circumstantial evidence.

Judgment :-

Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, J.

1. These appeals arise out of a judgment dated 14.01.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitting the respondent No.4 Mohan and respondent No. 5 Neetu (in Crl. A. 366/2011) and on orders on quantum dated 19.01.2011 whereby respondent No.3/Rakesh (in Crl. A. 366/2011) was sentenced for a period of imprisonment already undergone i.e. five years for committing the offence under Section 387 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing respondent No.2/Raj Kumar @ Bhola (Appellant in Crl. A. 582/2011) to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000/- each for committing the offences punishable under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs.1,000/- for committing the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one and half months. All sentences are to run concurrently. Appellant Raj Kumar @ Bhola (Respondent No.2 in Crl. A. No. 366/2011) also preferred an appeal No. Crl. A. No. 582/2011 against the aforesaid conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court.

2. Briefly stated, the incident that eventually culminated into the death of the Ashok @ Bunty, son of Ram Kishan, appellant in Crl. A. No. 366/2011 and the consequent prosecution of the appellant/father are that on 06.12.2005, Ashok @ Bunty went missing and did not return home; that his family members made every efforts to trace him but all in vain; that on 07.12.2005, they made a call at 100 number about the same; that on 08.12.2005, appellant lodged a complaint with Police Station – Kalyan Puri, Delhi with respect to his missing son; that on 08.09.2005, his younger son gave him a jacket of his missing son which contained a ransom letter pasted with a tape on the pocket of the jacket demanding Rs.10 Lacs for release of his missing son; that he along with his brother went to the police station and narrated the entire incident which was reproduced in writing and an FIR under Section 364A Indian Penal Code was registered; that on 12.12.2005, appellant received the shirt of his missing son containing another ransom letter threatening to kill his son in case the police was informed; that the second letter was also brought to the notice of the police and appellant reached the place mentioned in the ransom letter but none turned up at the spot; that on 16.12.2005, police recovered a dead body in the drain near Sabzi Mandi, Ghazipur in a decomposed condition which the appellant could not identify as that of Ashok @ Bunty; that on 15.01.2006, Jai Prakash, brother of the appellant apprehended accused Rakesh when he threw the third ransom letter at his door; that accused Rakesh was handed over to the police along with the third ransom letter wherein a demand of Rs.15 Lacs was made; that on interrogation by the police, accused Rakesh disclosed that he had thrown the ransom letter on the asking of accused Raj Kumar @ Bhola; that accused Rakesh led the police to Village Bhouvapur, District Ghaziabad to the house of Mohan; that on pointing of accused Rakesh, accused Raj Kumar @ Bhola was apprehended and on his pointing out a dairy with some missing papers was recovered; that on interrogation, accused Raj Kumar @ Bhola disclosed that he along with accused Neetu and Mohan kidnapped and killed Ashok @ Bunty; that they took Ashok @ Bunty to Subzi Mandi, T-Point, NH-24 and killed him and threw his body in the drain; that accused Raj Kumar led the police to the spot and got recovered two stones with bloodstains on it along with chappal and pant of the deceased; that on 07.01.2006, both accused Neetu and Mohan were apprehended f































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top