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

2014 Supreme(SC) 828

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Vikramajit Sen, Prafulla C. Pant, JJ.
Motilal Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2478 OF 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 2480 of 2014)
Decided On: 25-11-2014

IMPORTANT POINT
Well reasoned and discussed judgment and order cannot be interfered.
Not holding TI parade is not fatal if the natural witness identifies the accused without doubt.

Headnote:(a) Criminal trial – High Court discussing all evidence at length – Judgment and order not cryptic or brief – No infirmity. (Para 9)

       (2002) 4 SCC 571; (2003) 12 SCC 792; (2009) 3 SCC 174; (2010) 13 SCC 509 – Distinguished

       (b) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 9 – Test Identification Parade – Non-holding of – Not fatal, if natural witness identifies the accused without doubt. (Para 10, 14)

       (2012) 9 SCC 284; (2013) 14 SCC 266; (2014) 4 SCC 747 – Relied upon

       (1979) 3 SCC 319 – Referred

       Facts of the case:

       PW-6, Subhash Chandra Singh, gave written information at Police Station, Kahalgaon, on 23.4.2002 at 8.05 a.m. that his grandson Sagar Kumar (PW-5) has been kidnapped.

       A demand of Rs.10.00 lakhs was made by someone on phone disclosing his name as Prem Prakash Yadav (co-accused) for release of the boy. When several calls were made, on 17.5.2002 the victim’s parents agreed to pay Rs.6.00 lakhs according to their economic condition.

       The kidnappers called father of the victim to Haldwani (Uttarakhand).

       After receiving the money the victim was handed over to his father.

       After collecting evidence and interrogating the witnesses, prosecution filed charge-sheet against seven accused, namely, Raghunath Yadav, Prem Kumar Yadav @ Tuntun Yadav, Motilal Yadav (present appellant), Bina Devi, Bijay Yadav, Prem Prakash Yadav and Mamta Devi.

       The trial court found all the seven accused guilty of charge of offences punishable under Section 364A read with Section 34 IPC and under Section 120B read with Section 364A IPC, and after hearing of the matter on sentence, each one of them was sentenced to imprisonment for life and directed to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-under Section 364A read with Section 34 IPC, and further imprisonment for a period of two years under Section 120B read with Section 364A IPC.

       The conviction and the sentence was affirmed by the High Court.

       Finding of the Court:

       There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment And order.

       Result: Appeal dismissed.

       

JUDGMENT

Prafulla C. Pant, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against judgment and order dated 5.11.2012, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna, whereby the conviction of the accused-appellant Motilal Yadav recorded under Section 364A read with Section 34 and Section 120B read with Section 364A IPC by learned Additional Sessions Judge, ETC III, Bhagalpur, in Sessions Case No. 1053 of 2003/Trial No. 12 of 2004, is affirmed. The accused-appellant, along with other co-accused, has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life and directed to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-under Section 364A read with Section 34 IPC, and further sentenced to imprisonment for a period of two years under Section 120B read with Section 364A IPC.

3. Heard learned amicus curiae for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent.

4. Prosecution story in brief is that PW-6, Subhash Chandra Singh, gave a written information at Police Station, Kahalgaon, on 23.4.2002 at 8.05 a.m. that his grandson Sagar Kumar (PW-5) has been kidnapped. The informant narrated in the written report that the victim (Sagar Kumar), aged six years, along with his sister PW-4 Riya Kumari, aged four years, was going to St. Joseph NTPC School, Kahalgaon in a rickshaw pulled by PW-1 Anil Ram. The informant further told that the rickshaw puller told him that one person came to the rickshaw and took the victim after telling him that his father was calling him at the railway station. On receiving information, the informant immediately rushed to the location where the rickshaw puller Anil Ram (PW-1) was waiting for the victim’s return. An FIR No. 117/2002 was recorded at the police station and the investigations were taken up by the Investigating Officer.

5. Investigation revealed that after one day of kidnapping of the child, a demand of Rs.10.00 lakhs was made by someone on phone disclosing his name as Prem Prakash Yadav (co-accused) for release of the boy. When several calls were made, on 17.5.2002 the victim’s parents agreed to pay Rs.6.00 lakhs according to their economic condition. PW-3, Sourav Kumar (father of the victim) passed on the phone number of the caller to the police. The kidnappers called father of the victim to Haldwani (Uttarakhand), on which the witness (PW-3) desired to know as to by what route he could reach there. The caller informed the father of the victim to come by Farakka Express to Lucknow, and from there by a meter gauge train to Lal Kuan from where he would be getting tempo (three wheeler) to reach Haldwani. Accordingly PW-3 Sourav Kumar reached Haldwani on 21.5.2002 with money, and stayed at Kamta Hotel and waited for the caller’s messenger from where he was taken by the present appellant (Motilal Yadav) to the side of rivulet near Krishi Utpadan Bazar Samiti (Haldwani). Two persons (co-accused) were already waiting there. After making enquiry as to the amount brought by the witness (PW-3), two of the accused persons took the bag. Thereafter PW-3 Sourav Kumar was taken to Haldwani Bareilly Road where the victim was handed over to his father. Victim’s father, along with his recovered son, reached back Kahalgaon on 25.5.2002, and narrated the entire story to the police. After collecting evidence and interrogating the witnesses, prosecution filed charge-sheet against seven accused, namely, Raghunath Yadav, Prem Kumar Yadav @ Tuntun Yadav, Motilal Yadav (present appellant), Bina Devi, Bijay Yadav, Prem Prakash Yadav and Mamta Devi.

6. It appears that the trial court, after framing the charge and recording evidence, on conclusion of trial, found all the above seven accused guilty of charge of offences punishable under Section 364A read with Section 34 IPC and under Section 120B read with Section 364A IPC, and after hearing of the matter on sentence, each one of them was sentenced to imprisonment for life and directed to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-under Section 364A read with Section 34 IPC, and further imprisonment for a pe













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