Back
2019 Supreme(Raj) 1390
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Sabina and Goverdhan Bardhar, JJ.
Vinod Solanki - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 861 of 2015
Decided On : 30-07-2019
Vimal Singh Faujdar, Advocate, Sushil Pujari, Advocate, Alka Bhatnagar, Advocate
Court identification itself is a good identification in the eye of the law and it is not always necessary that it must be preceded by a test identification parade.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - ABDUCTION FOR RANSOM - MURDER - SECTION 364A, 302 IPC - EVIDENCE - IDENTIFICATION - TEST IDENTIFICATION PARADE - SECTION 9 INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 - COURT IDENTIFICATION - SUFFICIENCY - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - CORROBORATION - CONVICTION - UPHELD.
Fact of the Case:
Appellants challenged their conviction and sentence for abduction for ransom and murder under Sections 364A, 302, 201, and 120B IPC. The prosecution alleged that the appellants abducted the deceased, Ravikant, for ransom and later murdered him. The appellants denied the charges and claimed trial.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants had committed the offences of abduction for ransom and murder. The court relied on circumstantial evidence, including the testimony of witnesses, recovery of the deceased's belongings from the appellants, and the appellants' last seen with the deceased.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved the offence of abduction for ransom under Section 364A IPC? 2. Whether the prosecution had proved the offence of murder under Section 302 IPC? 3. Whether the court identification of the appellants was sufficient to convict them?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had proved the offence of abduction for ransom under Section 364A IPC by establishing that the appellants had kidnapped the deceased, kept him in custody, and demanded ransom for his release. 2. The court held that the prosecution had proved the offence of murder under Section 302 IPC by establishing that the appellants had killed the deceased with common intention. 3. The court held that the court identification of the appellants was sufficient to convict them, as it was corroborated by other evidence.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellants.
JUDGMENT
Goverdhan Bardhar, J - Challenge in the instant criminal appeal has been made by the appellants to the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 14.7.2015 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Jaipur Metropolitan [for short 'the learned trial Court'] in Sessions Case No. 10/2013, State of Rajasthan Vs. Vinod Solanki and Ors., whereby the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:-
U/s.364-A IPC:
Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months simple imprisonment.
U/s.302 read with 34 IPC:
Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months simple imprisonment.
U/s.201 read with 34 IPC:
Three years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months simple imprisonment.
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. Facts of the case in nutshell are that on 25.3.2013 complainant Daudayal Sharma (PW-1) submitted a written report (Ex.P1) to the SHO, Police Station Varun Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur to the effect that on 24.3.2013 at about 9:30 a.m. his son Ravikant along-with his companion Vinod Choudhary went on a motor-bike for job but till date he had not returned. Yesterday i.e. on 25.3.2013 at about 8-8:30 p.m. one call was received on his mobile No.9782115230 from mobile No.9887770750. The person who made the call asked him whether he is father of Ravi. He told him that if he wanted to see his son alive he has to deposit Rs.15,00,000/- in account No.AXIS BANK by 26.3.2013 but if he fails to deposit the aforesaid amount by 26.3.2013 then his son will not remain alive. Thus, his abducted son be recovered.
3. On the basis of aforesaid written report (Ex.P1), FIR No.165/2013 was registered for the offence under section 364-A IPC. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons for the offences under Sections 364-A, 302, 201, 120-B IPC in the Court concerned. Learned trial court framed charges against the accused namely; Dharmendra and Ajay Tiwari for the offences under Sections 364-A, 302/34, 201/120-B IPC and against accused Vinod Solanki and Dheeraj under Sections 364-A, 302/34, 201/34 and 120-B IPC. The appellants denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case recorded statements of twenty one witnesses and eighty five documents were got exhibited. Thereafter, the accused/appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence the accused appellant did not produce any witness but exhibited four documents. The appellants aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment/order of conviction and sentence passed by learned trial court dated 14.07.2015 have preferred this criminal appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the accused appellants has argued that in the present case investigation was made by the Investigating Officers of two States i.e. Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh. The investigation made in the Rajasthan by the Investigating Officer disclosed the story in challan that Ravikant (deceased) died due to strangulation by towel. However, the Investigating Officer of Uttar Pradesh State conducted investigation on the basis of statement PW21-Dr. R.N. Garg, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of deceased (Ravi Kant) disclosed that he died due to asphyxia as a result of drowning. Star witnesses of the prosecution did not support the prosecution story. PW2-Manoj Kumar deposed in examination-in-chief that on 24.03.2013 at about 8'o clock accused Dheeraj left his rented room situated at Mansarovar saying that he has some urgent work at home but in cross-examination this witness deposed that he left Dheeraj at about 11'o clock at Sindhi Camp Bus Stand from where he left for his village. Thereafter, he had not contacted him. On 24.03.2013, this witness deposed, that Vinod took Ravikant from his rented house at Mansarovar, whereas as per the F
