SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(All) 602

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Manoj Kumar Gupta, Om Prakash Tripathi, JJ.
Piyush Gupta - Appellant
Vs.
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.5806, 6421, 6412, 6146, 5806 of 2006, Government Appeal No. 598 of 2021
Decided On : 25-07-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Pankaj Bharti,Alok Ranjan Mishra,Anand Prakash Srivastava,Beenu Singh,Noor Mohammad,Satya Dheer Singh Jadaun,Ved Prakash Pandey,Vishal Agarwal, Sita Ram Vishwakarma, S.Alim Shah, I.K. Chaturvedi,Bharat Bhushan Paul,Sayed Saifulla (A.C.)
For the Respondent:Govt. Advocate, Dileep Kumar,R.K. Srivastava,S.P.S.Raghava, Govt. Advocate, Anil Raghav, Virendra Kumar Srivastava

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 364-A, 302, 201, 498-A – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313, 125, 161 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 25/26, 27 - Uttar Pradesh Dacoity Affected Areas Act, 1983 - Section 5 - Kidnapping - Murder Offence - Case relates to gruesome and heinous crime of kidnapping and murder of a ten years boy - Whether kidnapping followed by murder was with intent to compel family of victim to pay a ransom – Held, It is not in dispute that in instant case, victim was put to death even before ransom was realized - Prosecution case that victim was put to death as accused appellants were afraid of getting caught, developed during course of investigation as story unfolded and accused appellants were alleged to have confessed to above effect – Court have already held that confessional statement of accused appellants is not admissible, being hit by Section 25 and 26 of Evidence Act, except portion which led to recovery of dead body - Consequently, in facts of instant case and also in view of Section 27 of U.P. Dacoity Affected Areas Act, 1983, a presumption can safely be drawn to effect that kidnapping was done for ransom and thus, Court is of considered opinion that condition no.3 also stands fulfilled - Accordingly, Court uphold conviction of appellants under Section 302, 364-A and 201 IPC as recorded by trial court – Court do not find instant case to be rarest of rare cases so as to convert sentence of life imprisonment to capital punishment – Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Manoj Kumar Gupta, Om Prakash Tripathi, JJ.

1. Appeals bearing No.5806 of 2006, 6421 of 2006 and 6412 of 2006 are by accused persons against the judgment by the Court of Special Judge (D.A.A.), Agra dated 26.8.2006 convicting them under Sections 364-A, 302, 201 IPC and sentencing them to rigorous life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- each under Section 364-A IPC and same punishment for offence under Section 302 IPC and seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- each for offence under Section 201 IPC and in case of default in payment of fine, additional simple imprisonment of one year for each offence. All the sentences so awarded were to run concurrently and default sentences consecutively. Half of the fine was to go to the complainant, PW-1.

2. Criminal Revision No.6146 of 2006 is by complainant for enhancement of sentence of the convicted appellants from life imprisonment to capital punishment. The same prayer has been made in G.A. No.598 of 2021. Since all these matters relate to the same offence and involve common questions of facts and law, therefore, all the matters were heard together and are being decided by this common judgement.

3. The case relates to gruesome and heinous crime of kidnapping and murder of a ten years boy Gaurav Mittal (victim).

4. According to the prosecution story, the victim had gone missing since 19.02.2004. Initially, a missing report was lodged by his father Rakesh Kumar Mittal (PW-1) on 22.2.2004 at 03:30 p.m. at P.S. MM Gate (Ext. Ka-12) stating that his son Gaurav Mittal aged 10 years had gone from his house to his grandfather's house who lived nearby at about 5:00 p.m. on 19.02.2004. After sometime, it transpired that his son did not reach his grandfather's house. Consequently, they made hectic search for him. He was wearing full sleeves green coloured bush shirt, grey coloured pant and sleepers. His complexion is fair and on his right eye, there is a black coloured mark.

5. On 21.2.2004, suspecting foul play, PW-1 got installed ID Caller on his land-line number 0562-2363149. PW1 received a ransom call on 22.2.2004 on his land-line number. The kidnappers asked for ransom for safe release of his son. They said that the sum would be disclosed to him on the following day.

6. S.S.P., Agra, looking to the seriousness of the crime, handed over the investigation to SOG. It was headed by Sub-Inspector Avaneesh Dixit (PW3).

7. Second ransom call according to PW-1 was received by him on 23.2.2004. The kidnappers demanded Rs. 15 lakhs as ransom money. On 24.2.2004, he again received call from the kidnappers and ultimately the deal was settled for a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs. Some calls were received from mobile number 9899580426 and some from landline number 22311244. On 22.2.2004 at 3:20 p.m., the missing report was converted into first information report, bearing Crime Case No. 29 of 2004, under Section 364-A IPC, against unknown persons (Ext.-14).

8. The SOG team came to know that ransom calls were being made from Delhi. They headed for Delhi and reached Police Station Vivek Vihar on 25.2.2004 at 10:30 a.m. They apprised SI Atul Tyagi (PW6) and SI Vinay Tyagi about the episode. On investigation, it transpired that landline number 22311244 from which ransom calls were received, was that of a PCO at Balbir Nagar, Shahdra, Delhi, owned by one Sachin Chauhan and the Service Provider was Hutch company.

9. At 11:15 a.m., they reached the said location. They could not gather any clue as Sachin Chauhan told the police that it was not possible for him to remember identity of every customer who uses PCO.

10. At about 11:20 a.m., when the police party was returning after making enquiry from Sachin Chauhan, Sub-Inspector Atul Tyagi (PW6) received information from mukhbir (police informer) that since last 2-3 days, a boy aged 10 years was seen in company of Piyush Gupta (C1), who lives in a room on rent in Balbir Nagar, and his two companions Lokesh alias Babloo (C2) and Manoj Sharma (C3). Piyush Gup

                                            Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                                            1
                                            2
                                            3
                                            4
                                            5
                                            6
                                            7
                                            8
                                            9
                                            10
                                            11
                                            SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                                            supreme today icon
                                            logo-black

                                            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

                                            qr

                                            Scan Me!

                                            India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                                            For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                                            whatsapp-icon Back to top