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

2017 Supreme(SC) 391

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. SIKRI, ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.
Surajsinh Alias Sonu Surajsinh Collectorsinh Alias Sevaram Rajput - Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 695 of 2016
Decided On : 18-04-2017

IMPORTANT POINTS
Acquittal from charges u/s 307, 332 and 353 IPC is immaterial for conviction u/s 364(A) and 114 IPC. (Para 17)
Witness cannot be expected to give picture perfect report of the incident, and minor discrepancies have to be ignored. [Para 33]
Supreme Court should not interfere with concurrent judgments of courts below.

Headnote:(a) Criminal jurisprudence – Acquittal from charges u/s 307, 332 and 353 IPC – Immaterial for conviction u/s 364(A) and 114 IPC. (Para 17)

       (b) Criminal trial – Evidence of witness – Witness cannot be expected to give picture perfect report of the incident, and minor discrepancies have to be ignored. [Para 33]

       (c) Constitution of India – Article 136 – Concurrent judgments of courts below – No infirmity – Supreme Court should not interfere. (Para 35)

       Facts of the case:

       The present appellant and another accused were convicted under Section 364(A) read with Section 114 of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of rupees five hundred.

       Both the accused had filed appeals before the High Court which have been dismissed.

       Finding of the Court:

       The appeal sans merit.

       Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Ashok Bhushan, J.

1. This appeal has been filed, challenging the judgment of the Gujarat High Court dated 01.02.2016 dismissing the Criminal Appeal filed by the appellant, questioning the order of conviction recorded by Ahmedabad City Sessions Court under Section 364(A) read with Section 114 of IPC.

2. The present appellant and another accused Kamlesh were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of rupees five hundred by City Sessions Court. Both the accused had filed appeals before the High Court which have been dismissed. We have been informed that only one of the convicts has come up in this appeal.

3. The prosecution case in brief is:-

On 23.05.2010, one Anurag aged seven years, son of the complainant alongwith his sister-in-law and her children had gone to attend a marriage reception of one Dinesh Sharma's sister at Shakriba Party Plot. After the dinner got over, sister-in-law of the complainant, Smt. Rekhaben when called for the children to return Anurag was found missing. Smt. Rekhaben and others started searching for Anurag. Smt. Rekhaben called the complainant on his mobile phone between about 10 to 10.30PM informing about the missing of Anurag. Complainant and his wife immediately rushed to Shakriba Party Plot. In spite of rigorous search throughout, Anurag was nowhere found. On the next day i.e. 24.05.2010 in the afternoon complainant alongwith his brother-in-law and friends went to Ramol Police Station and informed about the missing of Anurag. A missing complaint was registered being Complaint No. 99/2010. When the inquiry was going on during that time on 24.05.2010 in the morning around 9 AM – 9:30 AM someone called Mr. Dinesh Sharma from mobile No. 8128381274 on his mobile No. 9825270948 and told him that he had the information about the boy who went missing from the marriage reception on 23.5.2010, but he did not want to reveal the information to him and told him that he will talk to his aunt only and asked about the mobile number of complainant's sister-in-law. The conversation didn't take place as the aunt of the boy was not at home and was searching for him. Afterwards around 11 O'clock brother-in-law of the complainant Satyendrasingh and his nephew Vikas told her that she will receive a call on her phone from someone who wanted to talk to her, but no call was received till 11.30 AM. After that, around 01.45 PM a call was received on complainant's mobile by No. 8128381274 and told him that if you wanted back the boy (Anurag) then he should keep ready Rs.10,00,000/- and at which place you have to bring money he will call you again. The complainant told him that he was a poor person please ask for lesser amount, but the person from other side told him that nothing can be done. If you wanted the boy, you should keep ready Rs. 10,00,000/- cash or they will kill the boy. Afterwards the person again called the complainant, but as the aunt of the boy had returned home she talked to that person, who also made her talk to Anurag. He again demanded Rs. 10,00,000/- cash for releasing the boy, which she told after disconnecting the phone.

4. The complainant, thereafter, went to the Police Station and FIR No. 144/2010 under Section 364(A), 114 of IPC was registered on 24.05.2010. Investigation was taken over by one Police Inspector, Jadeja, who after recording the statement of witnesses and taking the call details of the mobile number from which call was received, located the caller at Rajasthan. Thereafter, a police team was sent to Rajasthan and inquiry was also made from one Jayeshbhai Anilbhai Makwan in whose name the SIM Card was found to be registered. He told, he had lost his ID Card few months ago, which might have been misused.

5. A team of Gujarat Police went to Rajasthan in search of accused persons. The complainant alongwith few other persons also proceeded to Dausa, Jaipur. On 28.05.2010, the Rajasthan Police could recover the boy and also succeeded in arresting the appellant and other acc








































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