DESH DEEPAK KUMAR VIHANGAM@ DEEPAK KUMAR versus THE STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [2022] 16 S.C.R. 886 · Decided: 08-03-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJIV KHANNA, BELA M. TRIVEDI · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
886
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 16 S.C.R.
DESH DEEPAK KUMAR VIHANGAM@ DEEPAK KUMAR
v.
THE STATE OF BIHAR
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 673 of 2011)
MARCH 08, 2022
[SANJIV KHANNA AND BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: ss. 364A and 120B – Kidnapping for
ranson and abduction – On facts, a doctor kidnapped for ransom
and abducted along with his driver – Six persons convicted u/ss.
364A and 120 B, and sentenced to life imprisonment, and ordered
to pay fine – On appeal, held: Four of the accused were found
present at the house and were involved in the kidnapping – They
along with DK, on whose disclosure the amount was recovered from
his tenanted premises, were identified by the victims – In view thereof,
and the appreciation of evidence, findings and the conclusion of
the courts below as regards their conviction, is correct – As regards,
K, the Inspector and the I.O. who had detained K with DK, themselves
expressed doubt on involvement of K in the crime – Conclusive
inference cannot be drawn of an agreement or that K had gone to
the bus stand and had picked up DK in pursuance of a plan or
scheme to accomplish an objective or even with the knowledge that
DK was following the rickshaw because he had to collect ransom –
Thus, on facts and depositions made by the IO and the Inspector, K,
given benefit of doubt – As regards the two who were arrested on
suspicion, the assertions do not meet and satisfy the standard of
proof to connect them with the kidnapping of the doctor – Further,
there is not even an iota of evidence that any of the kidnappers
were known beforehand to them – Family of the victim had received
ransom calls even after the arrest of the two – Only after the arrest
of DK that the location where the victim after the abduction had
been kept was ascertained – Thus, the two also entitled to the benefit
of doubt.
Mohd. Khalid v. State of West Bengal (2002) 7 SCC
334 : [2002] 2 Suppl.  SCR 31; State of Kerala v. P.
Sugathan & Another (2000) 8 SCC 203: [2000] 3 Suppl.
   [2022] 16 S.C.R. 886
886
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
887
SCR 409; Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad
v. K. Narayana Rao (2012) 9 SCC 512 : [2012] 9 SCR
54 - relied on.
Case Law Reference
[2002] 2 Suppl. SCR 31
relied on
Para 14
[2000] 3 Suppl. SCR 409
relied on
Para 14
[2012] 9 SCR 54
relied on
Para 14
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 673 of 2011.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.05.2010 of the High Court
of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 618 of 2006.
With
Criminal Appeal Nos. 674-675, 683, 1714-1715 of 2011.
Deepak Nargolkar, Sr. Adv., Ms. Prerna Singh, Shikhar Srivastava,
T. Mahipal, Shreeyash U. Lalit, Mahesh Kumar, Nikhilesh Kumar, Ms.
Devika Khanna, Vishal Sharma, Mrs. V. D. Khanna, Kripa Shankar
Prasad, Manu Shanker Mishra, Nishant Kumar, Nithyananda Muthy P,
Ms. Bhanu Prabha, Vivekanand Singh, Anirudh Ray, Advs. for the
Appellant.
Abhinav Mukerji, Ms. Pratishtha Vij, Ms. Bihu Sharma, Arshi C.
Shrivastava, Advs. for the Respondent.
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered :
1. Impugned judgment dated 20th May 2010 passed by the High
Court of Judicature at Patna dismissed the appeals preferred by Desh
Deepak Kumar Vihangam @ Deepak Kumar, Bimlesh Kumar Singh,
Madan Prasad Thathera, Kanhaiya Lal, Ramjee Prajapati and Abhay
Kumar @ Pappu, who have been convicted under Sections 364A and
120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘Penal Code’, in short). The
aforesaid 6 convicts were sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for Life.
Desh Deepak Kumar Vihangam was ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 7,00,000
(Rupees Seven lakh Only), while the rest of the convicts were ordered
to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees One Lakh Only) each.
DESH DEEPAK KUMAR VIHANGAM@ DEEPAK KUMAR v.
THE STATE OF BIHAR
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
888
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 16 S.C.R.
2. The impugned judgment by the High Court however acquits
Santosh who was convicted by the trial court. The State has not preferred
any appeal challenging the acquittal of Santosh. The impugned judgment
has also convicted Pradeep Kumar Shrivastava, who had preferred a
petition for special leave to appeal, which was dismissed on 22nd October
2010. Another co-convict, Upendra Kumar Singh, whose conviction was
upheld by the High Court, has expired, and hence, his appeal has abated.
3. The case relates to the kidnapping for ransom of Dr. Shashi
Kumar Sinha (PW-3), abducted along with his driver Salauddin (PW-5)
on 7TH February 2006 while travelling in a car from hi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.