The court affirmed that a strong circumstantial chain supported by mobile communications and witness testimonies can establish guilt in kidnapping and murder cases, even when procedural challenges arise.

JUDGMENT

Mukta Gupta, J. By these five appeals, all the appellants challenge the common impugned judgment dated 17th July, 2019 convicting five of the eight accused persons for offences of kidnapping with murder of one Nikesh Kumar Singh ("deceased") punishable under Sections 364A/302/201/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC"). The appellants also challenge the order on sentence dated 05th September, 2019 whereby all the five appellants Hari Singh, Dinesh Kumar, Usman Khan @ Bunty, Rahul Gupta and Bhanu Pratap @ Pratap Bhan @ Babloo were directed to undergo imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.50,000/- each for offence punishable under section 302 IPC, the appellants were further directed to undergo imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.50,000/- each for offence punishable under section 364A IPC and rigorous imprisonment of three years along with fine of Rs.20,000/- each for offence punishable under section 201 IPC, in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for one year each.

2. In nutshell, the facts of the case as per the prosecution are that the complainant Udai Narayan (PW-12), father of the deceased filed a complaint (Ex.PW-12/A) on 04th October, 2010 at about 10.05 a.m. stating that his son Nikesh was missing. He gave the information to SI Kuldeep Singh (PW-15) that his son who was an engineering student at Bhagwan Parshuram Engineering College at Gohana and stayed at the hostel, reached District Centre, Janakpuri at about 8.30 p.m. on 30th September 2010, but did not reach home and his phone no. was switched off, and even after enquiry from his friends and relatives, Nikesh could not be found. Accordingly, FIR no. 256/2010 was registered on the said complaint of PW-12 at PS Vikaspuri (Ex.PW-1/A). On the evening of the same day i.e. 04th October, 2010, father of the deceased revealed to SI Kuldeep (PW-15) that he had received a call from mobile no. 8923174470 for ransom of Rs.10 Lacs for release of his son. Thereafter, as the said mobile phone no. 8923174470 was found to be involved in another FIR No.300/2010 registered at PS Dabri, the investigation in the present case was transferred to Crime Branch, which took over the investigation on 06th October, 2010. The complainant struck a deal of Rs.2.5 Lacs with the kidnappers and on 09th October, 2010, the complainant and his brother Shambhu Nath (PW-8) boarded the Garibrath Train from Delhi for Bareilly where he had to hand over the ransom amount of Rs.2.5 Lacs to the kidnappers for the release of his son. Inps. PC Yadav (PW-26) convinced the complainant to allow him to accompany him and thus, Insp. PC Yadav along with HC Kuldeep accompanied the complainant and boarded the same train but travelled in different coaches. A team of Police Officers comprising of SI Rajinder, ASI Ravinder, HC Vikal etc. were already stated to be present at Bareilly in connection with investigation of the other FIR No. 300/2010 of PS Dabri. On reaching the railway station at Bareilly, the complainant was directed by the caller to proceed to platform no. 6, and as the complainant was not willing to take IO (PW-26) to platform no. 6, so IO alongwith HC Kuldeep came out of the railway station after giving instruction t