The court ruled that while the crime was heinous, the possibility of reformation warranted commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment.

JUDGMENT :

Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.

1. Instant Death Reference No. 04 of 2019, Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1061 of 2019, Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1093 of 2019 and Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.1114 of 2019 arise out of the common judgment of conviction dated 24.09.2019 and order of sentence dated 26.09.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bokaro in Sessions Trial No.230 of 2014, whereby and where under appellants have been convicted for the offence under Sections 364(A), 302, 201 and 120 B of the IPC and sentenced to death under Section 302 of the IPC.

2. Matter involves kidnapping for ransom of a minor boy, who was later killed after payment of ransom amount in order to eliminate the evidence of crime.

3. Sudhanshu Kumar @ Ankit aged 11 years left his home situated at Sector IVC, Quarter No.3036, Bokaro Steel City for tuition classes on 26.11.2013 at 4 O’ Clock in the afternoon, and did not return thereafter. His father–informant lodged a missing report with the Sector IV Police Station, which was entered as Station Diary Entry No.683/13.

4. On 28.11.2013 a ransom demand of Rupees Twenty Lakh was made from SIM No.8292913339 following which Bokaro (Chas) Sector IV P.S. Case No.210/13 was registered on 29.11.2013 under Section 364A/34 of the IPC against unknown. Later on, Sections 302, 201, 120B of IPC were added. During investigation, the dead body of the kidnapped boy was recovered on the basis of the disclosure statement.

5. Police on investigation, submitted charge sheet under Sections 364A, 302, 201/120B of the IPC against the appellants namely Sanjay Kumar, Sanjeev Kumar and Vivek Kumar. One of the co-accused Satish Kumar Mishra was found to be a juvenile in conflict with law and his case was transferred to the Juvenile Justice Board.

6. The appellants were put on trial for the offence under Sections 364A, 302, 201/120B of the IPC. Altogether 14 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and relevant documents (different seizure lists, post-mortem report, call detail report, disclosure statement, CCTV footage) were adduced into evidence and marked as Exhibit 1 – 42/1. Material exhibits which included ransom amount recovered from the accused persons, three mobile sets, school bag, tiffin box etc. of the deceased were made material Exhibits I – VIII.

7. From a plain reading of the evidence on record, it is evident that there is no direct eye witness to the commission of kidnapping or murder, and the case rests on circumstantial evidence, and the judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellants is based on circumstantial evidence.

ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

8. It is argued by learned Counsel appearing on behalf of appellant – Vivek Kumar that as per the content of the confessional statement, he was not involved in the murder and his role was confined to kidnapping only. At best knowledge of death of victim can be imputed to the deceased, but from this an inference that he was involved in the murder cannot be drawn against him for returning of conviction under Section 302 or 201 of the IPC.

9. With regard to recovery of the Rs.1,50,000/- on disclosure of Vivek, it is argued that this amount was received by him from Satish Mishra as stated by him in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.

10. With regard to the recovery of the ransom amount with signature on some of the currency notes of PW-1, it is argued that none of the prosecution witnesses have stated that they had put their signature on the G.C notes.

11. Recovery of the dead body was made on 07.12.2013, but the accused persons had been taken into custody much before that is on 04.12.2013, whereas the dead body was recovered on 07.12.2013. There is no explanation of three days delay in recovery of the dead body of the deceased boy after recording the confessional statement of the accused persons.

12. It is argued on behalf of appellant – Sanjay Kumar Rajak that there are contradictory version with regard to his place of arrest which renders subsequent dis