Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Shree Chandrashekhar, Ratnaker Bhengra, JJ.
Kanhaiya Chaudhary @ Sashi Chaudhary, s/o Binod Chaudhary – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 570, 704, 603, 793 of 2014
Decided On : 05-10-2021
364-A - Criminal Appeals - Indian Penal Code - 364-A, 302, 201, 120-B - The judgment discusses the conviction of the appellants under section 364-A read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The court analyzed the evidence, including confessional statements, circumstantial evidence, and scientific evidence related to the abduction and ransom demand. The judgment highlights the importance of circumstantial evidence, the burden of proof on the prosecution, and the right of the accused to remain silent.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the abduction of Nand Kishor Singhania for ransom, resulting in a headless dead body being found. The prosecution relied on confessional statements, circumstantial evidence, and scientific evidence to establish the guilt of the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution evidence, including confessional statements and circumstantial evidence, was insufficient to conclusively connect the appellants with the crime. The court emphasized the importance of reliable evidence and the prosecution's burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: The key issues included the sufficiency of evidence, the reliability of confessional statements, the weight of circumstantial evidence, and the burden of proof on the prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: The judgment established that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove the circumstances with reliable evidence, and every hypothesis of innocence must be ruled out. The court emphasized that the burden of proof remains on the prosecution and the accused's right to remain silent cannot be the sole basis for conviction.
Final Decision: The court set aside the conviction and order of sentence for the appellants under section 364-A read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants were ordered to be released forthwith.
JUDGMENT :
Chandrashekhar, J.
Kanhaiya Chaudhary @ Sashi Chaudhary, Chandan Kumar Singh, Sonu Kumar Singh and Rupesh Kumar Singh have filed these criminal appeals challenging the judgment of conviction under section 364-A read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code passed against them in S.C. No. 44 of 2012.
2. Deoghar (Town) PS Case No.74 of 2011 was lodged on 19th March 2011 against unknown. In his fardbeyan which was recorded at 11:30 AM on 19th March 2011, Surender Singhania gave a statement before the officer-in-charge of Deoghar (Town) PS that last night his father did not come back home from the factory and the next morning, on inquiry, he came to know that Manohar Singh who was working as a guard at the factory called a rickshaw for his father who had left for home around 08:30 PM. He informed the officer-in-charge that a ransom call came at the landline bearing number 222529 at his house and, therefore, he apprehends that his father has been abducted for ransom. In course of the investigation, Chandan Kumar Singh, Sonu Kumar Singh and Rupesh Kumar Singh were arrested on 23rd March 2011 from a rented house of the father of Saroj Singh at village Tiwari Tola, Saharsa and Rati Yadav, the rickshaw puller who was called by Manohar Singh for taking Nand Kishor Singhania to home, was also found confined in the same house. During the investigation, it became clear that Saroj Singh was the mastermind who had planned kidnapping of Nand Kishor Singhania for extracting ransom of Rs.3 crores. Saroj Singh and Kanhaiya Chaudhary were arrested on 23rd March 2011 at Professor Colony, Farbishganj in Bihar and on the same day Saroj Singh suffered a confessional statement implicating 8 other persons in the crime.
3. A headless dead body was found in decomposed condition near Belharni river and in this regard Sangrampur PS Case No.25 of 2011 was registered on 25th March 2011. The inquest was prepared and the unidentified dead body was sent for postmortem examination. The scientific investigation carried to find out identity of the dead body revealed that blood sample of the informant matched with bone sample collected from the dead body. Mr. R.S. Singh who prepared DNA report has testified in the Court that the dead body which was recovered on 25th March 2011 has parental lineage with the informant.
4. In course of the investigation statement of Rati Yadav was recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and then the story of abduction of Nand Kishor Singhania in the evening of 18th March 2011 became clear. The confessional statements of Kanhaiya Chaudhary, Chandan Kumar Singh, Sonu Kumar Singh and Rupesh Kumar Singh were taken by the investigating officer which are recorded in the case-diary. After the investigation a charge-sheet was filed in the Court against Kanhaiya Chaudhary, Chandan Kumar Singh, Sonu Kumar Singh, Rupesh Kumar Singh, Ashish Kumar Gautam @ Lal Singh, Chunni Tiwari, Bablu Tiwari, Pranav Deo and Saroj Singh and they were put on trial for committing the offences punishable under sections 364-A, 302, 201 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
5. Subsequently, the records of Saroj Singh were separated vide order dated 07th January 2013. We are informed that Saroj Singh who faced the trial separately in Session Trial No.44A of 2012 has been acquitted by judgment dated 22nd November 2019.
6. In S.C. No.44 of 2012, Chunni Tiwari, Bablu Tiwari, Pranav Deo and Ashish Kumar Gautam were acquitted primarily for the reason that the prosecution was not able to lead evidence to connect them with crime.
7. Kanhaiya Chaudhary, Chandan Kumar Singh, Sonu Kumar Singh and Rupesh Kumar Singh are convicted and sentenced to R.I for life and a fine of Rs.2000/-under section 364-A read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
8. Sri A.K. Kashyap, the learned senior counsel, appearing for Kanhaiya Chaudhary submits that there is no evidence against this appellant except that Kanhaiya Chaudhary was found in the company of Saroj Sing
The judgment emphasizes the importance of reliable evidence in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the burden of proof on the prosecution, and the right of the accused to remain silent.
The court emphasized that lack of essential documentation and procedural compliance invalidates the prosecution's case, leading to the acquittal of the accused who were convicted of kidnapping for ra....
The main legal point established is the reliance on the victim's testimony, supported by corroborative evidence, to establish the guilt of the accused in a case of abduction for ransom. The court als....
The prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of evidence beyond reasonable doubt for conviction, failing which the accused is entitled to acquittal.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
