The main legal point established in the judgment is the sufficiency of evidence to prove the charges of kidnapping for ransom and criminal conspiracy against the accused.

Hima Kohli, J.

A challenge has been laid in these three appeals to a common judgment dated 12.2.2004, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 57/2002 arising out of FIR No.25/2002 registered under Sections 363/364-A/368 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC'), whereunder all the three appellants have been held guilty of entering into a criminal conspiracy of kidnapping an 8/10 years old boy, Bharat Singh @ Bunty and demanding ransom from his father for his release. All the three appellants have been convicted under Section 120-B IPC and Sections 364-A/368 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC. Vide order on sentence dated 13.2.2004, the appellants were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, failing which they have been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each. Pertinently, there were four co- accused in the present case. Three accused persons, namely, accused No.2, Gauri Shankar Sharma (appellant in Criminal Appeal No.643/2018), his wife, accused No.3, Lilawati (appellant in Criminal Appeal No.680/2004) and accused No.4, Vipin Kumar Saini (appellant in Criminal Appeal No.214/2018) have faced trial, whereas the fourth co-accused, accused No.1, Dinanath Ray @ Umesh could not be arrested and was declared a Proclaimed Offender.

2. The prosecution case is that on 11.1.2002, Bharat Singh @ Bunty aged 8/10 years had left at 8.00AM from his residence, bearing House No.1162, Gali No.47, Molarband Extension, Badarpur Border to attend his school situated in the same locality, namely, Great Anubhav St. Thomas Public School. When Bharat did not return home by 11.00 A.M., his father, Jawahar Singh went to enquire about his whereabouts from his school and was informed by his class teacher that his son, Bharat had not attended school on that date. On learning this, Jawahar Singh went about searching for his son throughout the day and at 5.00 P.M., he went to Police Station-Badarpur, to lodge a missing report. Based on the said report, FIR No.25/2002 (Ex.PW2/A) was initially registered under Section 363 IPC and the investigation was handed over to SI Ravi Shanker.

3. After two days, on 13.1.2002, Jawahar Singh received a phone call in the evening at a shop situated opposite his house, named Ajanta Sewak Band in Badarpur Market where telephone No.6949331 was installed. When Jawahar Singh attended the said call, the caller purportedly identified himself as Vijay Chaudhary and demanded a ransom of Rs. 8,00,000/-, for releasing his son. He was told to reach with the ransom money at Hanuman Mandir situated near Patna Railway Station. On receiving the said call, Jawahar Singh immediately purchased mobile phone with No.910352967 and gave a call to the caller at the number given by him i.e. 0612-434406. He was warned that if the ransom amount is not paid, his son would be beheaded.

4. Jawahar Singh informed the police about receiving the telephone call. The I.O., SI Ravi Shankar directed surveillance of the telephone number installed at Ajanta Sewak Band. On making inquiries, he discovered that the phone number given by the caller was installed at an STD booth located at Masori, District Patna. On 17/18.1.2002, Jawahar Singh accompanied by his brother-in-law, Jagbir Singh travelled to Patna by train. He sent Jagbir Singh to Hanuman Temple to look for the kidnapper, but none arrived. In the mean time, SI Ravi Shanker formed a team and proceeded from Delhi to Patna. Jawahar Singh's wife informed her husband that the kidnappers had called her at Delhi and told her that they would call her again on next morning. On 19.1.2002, Jawahar Singh's wife informed the kidnappers that her husband was staying at Hotel Royal Lodge at Patna. Jawahar Singh received a telephone call at the said hotel and the caller told him to bring the ransom money and reach Maner Dargah on an auto rickshaw. He was also warned that if he tried to play smart, his son would be kille