Conviction based solely on confessions of co-accused is insufficient; prosecution must provide corroborating evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI)

Date : 18-02-2025

The present appeals have been filed under Section- 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as ‘Cr.P.C.’) challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 12.12.2018, whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections- 364A/34, 302/34, 201/34 and 302/120B of I.P.C. and the appellants have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section-364A/34 of I.P.C. and, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for six months each. Further, they have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section- 302/34 of I.P.C. and, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for six months each. Further, they have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years and a fine of Rs. 2000/- each for the offence punishable under Section-201/34 of I.P.C. and, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for one month each. Further, they have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life each for the offence punishable under Section-302/120B of I.P.C. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

2. Heard Mr. Vijay Anand, learned counsel for the appellant assisted by Ms. Sarita Kumari (in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 142 of 2019), Mr. Ranjan Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the appellant assisted by Mr. Rana Pratap Singh, Mritunjay Kr. Mishra and Mr. Vikash Kumar (in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 153 of 2019) and Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, learned A.P.P. for the respondent-State in both the matters.

3. As both the appeals arise out of the same judgment and order, they are taken up together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

4. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeals are as under:

“The informant Kailash Paswan lodged an F.I.R. on 02.10.2016 with regard to missing of his son namely Raushan Kumar stating that his son went missing at 02:00 p.m. on 30.09.2016 and he received a ransom call on his Mobile No. 9006122925 from Mobile No. 8151957018 demanding a ransom of Rs.15,00,000/- for safe return of his son. When call made on the said mobile phone, there is no response from that side and till lodging the F.I.R. his son is traceless.” 5. After filing of the F.I.R., the investigating agency carried out the investigation and, during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the witnesses and collected the relevant documents and thereafter filed the charge-sheet against the accused. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as Sessions Trial No.31 of 2017.

6. Thereafter, further statement of the accused persons was recorded under Section-313 of the Code and after completion of the trial, the trial court passed the impugned judgment and order, against which the appellants have preferred the present appeals.

7. Learned advocates, at the outset, submit that there is a delay in lodging the F.I.R. and, in fact, for the incident which took place on 30.09.2016, written complaint was given by the informant on 02.10.2016. It is also submitted that even after registration of the F.I.R., copy of the same was sent to the concerned Magistrate only on 06.10.2016 for which no explanation has been given by the prosecution. It is also su