Back
2018 Supreme(Raj) 466
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
Mohammad Rafiq, Goverdhan Bardhar, JJ.
Haluka - Appellant
Vs.
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1063 of 2014, 61 of 2015
Decided On : 27-04-2018
Advocate Appeared:
Anil Jain, Ashok Kumar, Dinesh Kumar Garg, Sanjay Mehla, Soniya Shandaliya
Court identification of an accused is admissible under Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and is a good identification in the eye of the law. It is not always necessary for a test identification parade to be conducted prior to court identification. The failure to hold a test identification parade does not render the evidence of identification at the trial inadmissible.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - KIDNAPPING FOR RANSOM - SECTION 364A IPC - EVIDENCE - IDENTIFICATION - TEST IDENTIFICATION PARADE - COURT IDENTIFICATION - CORROBORATION - FACTUAL ANALYSIS AND LEGAL PRINCIPLES: 1. Kidnapping for Ransom: Section 364A IPC - Ingredients: - Kidnapping, abduction, or detention of a person. - Keeping the person in custody or detention. - Kidnapping, abduction, or detention for ransom. 2. Identification of Accused: - Court Identification: Admissible under Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. - Test Identification Parade: Corroborative of Court Identification, not a matter of right. - Failure to Hold Test Identification Parade: Does not render Court Identification inadmissible. 3. Corroboration of Identification: - Testimony of Other Witnesses: Corroborates Identification of Accused. - Natural and Consistent Statements: Strengthen Corroboration. 4. Factual Analysis: - Victim's Testimony: Clear and Consistent Identification of Accused. - Corroboration by Other Witnesses: Supports Victim's Testimony. - Test Identification Parade: Conducted Properly, Corroborates Court Identification. 5. Legal Principles: - Motilal Yadav v. State of Bihar: Court Identification is Good Identification, not always preceded by Test Identification Parade. - R. Shaji v. State of Kerala: Test Identification Parade is Corroborative, not Mandatory. - Ashok Debbarma v. State of Tripura: Test Identification Parade's Purpose is to Identify Offenders, Failure to Hold it does not Invalidate Court Identification.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved two criminal appeals filed by accused appellants Haluka and Ashok Kumar, challenging their conviction and sentence for kidnapping for ransom under Section 364A IPC. The prosecution alleged that the accused appellants abducted the victim, Puneet, on a motorcycle and demanded a ransom of Rs. 5 lacs for his release. The victim's father, Hakim Singh, paid the ransom and Puneet was released. The accused appellants were arrested and charged with offenses under Sections 364A, 120B, and 386 IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused appellants had committed the offense of kidnapping for ransom. The court relied on the testimony of the victim, Puneet, who clearly and consistently identified the accused appellants as the perpetrators of the crime. The court also considered the corroborating testimony of other witnesses, including the victim's father, Hakim Singh, and the school teacher, Mukesh Kumar. The court further held that the test identification parade conducted in the case was proper and corroborated the court identification of the accused appellants.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused appellants had committed the offense of kidnapping for ransom under Section 364A IPC. 2. Whether the identification of the accused appellants by the victim and other witnesses was reliable and sufficient to convict them.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused appellants had committed the offense of kidnapping for ransom under Section 364A IPC. The court relied on the following factors: 1. The clear and consistent testimony of the victim, Puneet, who identified the accused appellants as the perpetrators of the crime. 2. The corroborating testimony of other witnesses, including the victim's father, Hakim Singh, and the school teacher, Mukesh Kumar. 3. The proper conduct of the test identification parade, which corroborated the court identification of the accused appellants.
Final Decision: The court dismissed both criminal appeals filed by the accused appellants and confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court.
Goverdhan Bardhar, J.
In both the criminal appeals the accused appellants Haluka and Ashok Kumar have challenged the Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20.10.2014 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.1, Bayana (Bharatpur) in Sessions Cases No. 38/2014 (85/11) whereby the learned trial court has convicted and sentenced both the accused appellants under section 364A IPC to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine the accused appellant was to further undergo simple imprisonment of one year; under section 120B IPC to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine the accused appellant was to further undergo simple imprisonment of one year and under section 386 IPC to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine the accused appellant was to further undergo simple imprisonment of one year. Sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. Prosecution story in brief is that Hakim Singh (PW8) s/o Shri Nathi Ram r/o Village Harinagar, Tehsil Roopbas, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan) submitted a written report (Ex.P5) on 18.02.2011 to SHO, Police Station, Roopbas (Bharatpur) to the effect that his son Puneet was kidnapped for ransom and for release of his son, he paid Rs.5 lacs but till date he is receiving threatening from the offenders. Informant narrated in the written report that on 8.11.2010 at about 10:00 A.M. his son Puneet and daughter Sapna along-with other students namely; Umesh s/o Bhagwan Singh, Vishvendra s/o Ramesh of his village went in school for study in Daulatgarh Village. Near the Village, two unknown persons came on red colour passion motorcycle and enquired from them about Hakim's son Puneet. Puneet disclosed his identity. Then these unknown persons took Puneet along-with by telling that he is being called by his father for some urgent work. Puneet sat on the bike in middle. These persons turned the motorcycle towards the village and told first to get petrol filled in the motorcycle from the petrol pump. When these persons left the petrol pump behind, Puneet asked that petrol pump has been crossed, as to where he is being taken. Upon this, the person who was sitting behind opened revolver and threatened Puneet not to make hue and cry otherwise he would be killed.
3. Due to fear Puneet remained silent. Afterwards, he was taken to the forest after covering his eyes. The informant narrated that his daughter Sapna, who studies in Class VIII told about the incident to her Teacher Mukesh, who made a telephonic call and informed about the incident to him. Then complainant came to know about kidnapping of his son Puneet. He immediately dialled to the Police Control Room at No.100 but no response was given by the Control Room. After four hours at about 2:30 P.M. he received a telephonic call of somebody from Mobile No. 8058706691 on his Mobile No.9982872658 and a demand of Rs. 5 lacs was made by someone. The caller told that the arrangement of amount be made by next day otherwise his son would be killed. The complainant sought time to make arrangement of the amount on the ground of his weak economic condition. When several calls were made, on 10.11.2010 the victim family agreed to pay Rs. 5 lacs ransom amount. The kidnappers called along-with money to Kheria Mod at Bayana. The kidnappers told that only one person should come. Upon which his brother Rambabu alone went to the place of accused by the route told by the callers where the victim Puneet was detained. Two persons were already waiting there. After making enquiry as to the amount brought by his brother Rambabu, two of the accused received the amount and after receiving the amount they released his son Puneet and handed over to his brother. The complainant further narrated that on 2.12.2010 at about 2:30 P.M. the kidnappers threatened from Mobile No. 9610773213 not to lodge any FIR against them of the incident. But again he was threatened from Mobile
