Back
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT JABALBUR BENCH
Rakesh Saksena, T.K.Kaushal, JJ.
In Reference (Received from III ASJ (Fast Track Court) - Appellant
Versus
Rahul Rajak and others - Respondent
Criminal Reference No. 2-2011, Criminal Appeal No. 1780-2011, Criminal Appeal No. 1793-2011 & Criminal Appeal No. 1818-2011 & From the Judgment and Order dated 30-7-2011 of the Court of 111 Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Narsinghpur, in S.T No. 214-2009
Decided On : 25-07-2012
CRIMINAL APPEAL - [SECTION 364-A/34, 302/34, 302/120-B, 201 AND 404/34 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE] - [Rarest of rare case - Death sentence - Confirmation - Circumstances - Conspiracy - Motive - Recovery of ransom money - Recovery of ornaments - Identification of ornaments - Evidence of approver - Corroboration - Last seen evidence - Circumstantial evidence - Mitigation circumstances]
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted under Sections 364-A/34, 302/34, 302/120-B, 201 and 404/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to death with fine of Rs. 100/-, Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs. 1000/- and Rigorous Imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. 100/-, on each count respectively. In default of payment of fine, appellants have further been sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for one month, on each count respectively.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the accused/appellants abducted the deceased for ransom, caused his death and with a view to conceal offence destroyed the evidence by throwing the dead body in river. The Court also found that the accused/appellants had conspired to commit the murder and that the deceased was last seen alive with them.
Issues: 1. Whether the accused/appellants abducted the deceased for ransom and caused his death? 2. Whether the accused/appellants conspired to commit the murder? 3. Whether the deceased was last seen alive with the accused/appellants? 4. Whether the evidence of the approver is reliable? 5. Whether the case falls in the category of 'the rarest of rare cases' calling for death penalty?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the accused/appellants abducted the deceased for ransom and caused his death on the basis of the following circumstances: * Accused Rahul gave mobile with SIM to Dolly Ladiya (P.W. 1) to keep contact with deceased. * On the instructions of accused Rahul Rajak, Dolly Ladiya called the deceased and took him to Bhedaghat. * Though accused persons were known to deceased and were residents of Narsinghpur, where the deceased resided yet they did not themselves call deceased to join them at Bhedaghat. * All the three accused persons were present at Bhedaghat when Dolly Ladiya took deceased there. * Accused Ashok Vishwakarma took back SIM of the mobile of Dolly Ladiya at Bhedaghat which was used by her for calling deceased. * Deceased, who was left in the company of accused persons, was thereafter never seen alive. * Dead body of deceased was discovered from river at Bhedaghat on the information given by accused Rahul Rajak. * Gold rings, gold chain and the bracelet of deceased were recovered from the possession of accused persons. * A demand of ransom was made from the parents of deceased. This demand was made from the mobile of deceased. * On delivery of Rs. 30 lacs in two bags, the money was picked up by accused Rahul Rajak. * The ransom money was recovered and seized from the possession of accused Rahul Rajak. 2. The Court held that the accused/appellants conspired to commit the murder on the basis of the following circumstances: * Accused Rahul gave mobile with SIM to Dolly Ladiya (P.W. 1) to keep contact with deceased. * On the instructions of accused Rahul Rajak, Dolly Ladiya called the deceased and took him to Bhedaghat. * Though accused persons were known to deceased and were residents of Narsinghpur, where the deceased resided yet they did not themselves call deceased to join them at Bhedaghat. * All the three accused persons were present at Bhedaghat when Dolly Ladiya took deceased there. * Accused Ashok Vishwakarma took back SIM of the mobile of Dolly Ladiya at Bhedaghat which was used by her for calling deceased. * Deceased, who was left in the company of accused persons, was thereafter never seen alive. 3. The Court held that the deceased was last seen alive with the accused/appellants on the basis of the following circumstances: * Dolly Ladiya (P.W. 1) stated that she left the deceased with the accused persons soon before he was killed. * The dead body of the deceased was recovered from Bhedaghat on the information given by accused Rahul Rajak. 4. The Court held that the evidence of the approver is reliable on the basis of the following circumstances: * The approver's evidence was corroborated by the evidence of other witnesses. * The approver's evidence was consistent with the other evidence in the case. * The approver's evidence was not contradicted by any other evidence in the case. 5. The Court held that the case does not fall in the category of 'the rarest of rare cases' calling for death penalty on the basis of the following circumstances: * There was no direct evidence as to the manner in which the gruesome murder has taken place. * It is not possible to discern and arrive at any definite conclusion as to the role played by each of the accused in the commission of dastardly crime. * The accused persons in this materialistic society could not control their greed for money by indulging in nefarious activities.
Final Decision: The conviction of the accused/appellants under Sections 364-A/34, 302 r/w Section 120-B, 201 and 404/34 of the Indian Penal Code is affirmed. However, death sentence awarded to aforesaid appellants is reduced to the imprisonment for life. Sentences awarded under Sections 201 and 404/34 of the Indian Penal Code are also affirmed.
Judgment
Rakesh Saksena, J.:-
Aforesaid criminal reference and appeals arise out of the common impugned judgment, therefore, this judgment shall govern the disposal of all the above cases.
1. Appellants have filed appeals against the judgment dated 30th July 2011, passed by III Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Narsinghpur, in Sessions Trial No. 214/2009, convicting them under Sections 364-A/34, 302/34 and 302/120-B, 201 and 404/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to death with fine of Rs. 100/-, Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs. 1000/- and Rigorous Imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. 100/-, on each count respectively. In default of payment of fine, appellants have further been sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for one month, on each count respectively.
2. Learned Trial Judge has since awarded death sentence to all the appellants, he has made reference to this Court for confirmation of the same.
3. In short, the prosecution case is that on 6-5-2009, at about 10.30 a.m., Smt. Nidhi Thakur made a telephonic report to Police Station, Narsinghpur that her brother Pankaj had gone to Jabalpur in the morning of 5-5-2009 for getting his Wagon R Car No. MP-20-CA-6184 serviced. He was with Pradeep Dubey till 4.00 o'clock in the evening, but, thereafter, he could not be contacted. His mobile was also switched off. In the night, at about 12.30 p.m., from the mobile of Pankaj, some unknown person made a call on the mobile of Krishna Rajput, the mother of Pankaj, that Pankaj had been abducted in Jabalpur and if they wanted him to be released, they will have to pay ransom. He threatened that if information was given to police, Pankaj would be killed. On 6-5-2009, at about 9.00 a.m., Krishna Rajput again received a call that if she wanted to see her son alive, she will have to manage Rs. 80 lacs as ransom. Ultimately, the deal was struck for Rs. 30 lacs. On the report lodged by Smt. Nidhi Thakur, a case under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code was registered by ASI Umesh Dubey (P.W. 22).
4. On the orders of DIG, Anti Terrorist Squad (for short 'ATS'), a team of ATS headed by Sub Inspector, Ritesh Sahu (P.W. 21) was constituted to proceed on the directions of Superintendent of Police, Narsinghpur. Ritesh Sahu, in the morning of 7-5-2009, went at the house of Pankaj Thakur and suggested his family members to negotiate with the abductor. Abductor asked Raghuvir Singh, the father of Pankaj, to bring money to Jabalpur in a car. Raghuvir Singh arranged Rs. 30 lacs and kept them in two bags and left for Jabalpur in a Scorpio Jeep with Inspector Ritesh Sahu in the garb of driver. In Jabalpur, on the instructions of abductor, they put the bags of money on a hand cart in the market and kept a vigil from the jeep. After some time, accused Rahu ujak picked up the aforesaid bags on a motorcycle and went to Hotel Blue Moon, inspector Sahu informed his team and followed the accused. When*accused Rahul entered his room of hotel, Inspector Sahu with his team made a raid and took control of accused Rahul Rajak, who alone was in room. Inspector Sahu searched Rahul and his room and seized the currency notes of? 30 lacs kept in two bags. He also seized two mobile sets and motorcycle used for carrying money from the possession of accused. Inspector Sahu alongwith accused, Raghuvir Singh and the seized money went back to Police Station, Narsinghpur.
5. At about 9.30 p.m., on 7-5-2009, accused Rahul disclosed that he threw dead body of Pankaj in Narmada River at Bhedaghat and left the Wagon R Car of Pankaj at Raj Marg.near Police Station, Suatala. This information was recorded in memorandum (Exh. P-19) and Rahul was arrested vicle arrest memo (Exh. P-23). Wagon R Car of deceased was already seized by Police, Suatala lying abandoned.
6. On 8-5-2009, Sub Inspector, Swarnjeet Singh Dhami (P.W. 23) was called from Police Station, Themi and was handed over the investigation of the case. On the basis of information given b
AI
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
