LexRANJEET KUMAR RAM@ RANJEET KUMAR DAS versus STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 36 A RANJEET KUMAR RAM@ RANJEET KUMAR DAS B v. STATE OF BIHAR (Criminal Appeal No. 1831 of2011) MAY 15, 2015 [T. 5. THAKUR AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: ss.364A, 302134, 1208, 201 - c Kidnapping and murder- Prosecution case was that five year old son of PW-8 was kidnapped for ransom and later murdered - The victim child was playing with his sister PW- 2 in the street when A-5 and A-3 lured him with chocolates and took him away-After 5-6 days, A-1 and A-4 told PW8 D that his son would come back if he would pay money-After 3 months, PW8 received phone call demanding a ransom - Kidnappers informed PW8 to come with money with his neighbours A-1 and A-4 - PW8 wrapped the ransom money in plastic bag and kept it in gunny bag under the carrier of E his cycle and accompanied A-1, A-4 and A-2- They reached the place as instructed by kidnappers and A-3 and A-5 came out of a hut and snatched the money from under the caffier of the cycle and informed PW8 that his son would be back by evening - However the boy did not return - Investigating F officer conducted raid and made arrests - Based on statement of A-1, cuffency notes were recovered- Based on statements of A-3, A-4 and A-5, 10 went to the place where dead body of victim boy was recovered- Trial court convicted G A-1, A-3, A-4 & A-5 for kidnapping and murder and A-2 for kidnapping - High Court acquitted A-2 however upheld conviction of A-1, A-3, A-4, A-5 - On appeals, held: The testimony of the PW-2, sole child witness was reliable and consistent- Evidence of PW-8 corroborated the evidence of H PW-2 - Evidence of PW-8 established that the victim boy 36 RANJEET KUMAR RAM@ RANJEET KUMAR DAS v. 37 STATE OF BIHAR was last seen in the company of A-3 and A-5 - Conduct of A- A 3 and A-5 of pulling money kept in gunny bag from PW-B's cycle showed that they had knowledge about money which only indicated prior meeting of minds of accused - Concurrent finding of courts below that A-3 and A-5 were guilty for kidnapping and murder not interfered with -As regards, B A-1, he was brother-in-Jaw of A-3- His conduct in not showing any reaction to his brother-in-law's act of kidnapping was not in consonance with natural human conduct - This conduct of A-1 coupled with the evidence that he has been persuading PWB to pay the money to kidnappers to get back his son Jed C to the irresistible inference that A-1 shared the common intention with A-3 and A-5 in kidnapping the child and committing murder - Recovery of currency note from the house of A-1 was yet another link strengthening his complicity 0 in the commission of offence -As regards A-4, neither any recovery was made from him nor any incriminating evidence was available against him - Case against A-4 not proved beyond reasonable doubt and his conviction set aside. Dismissing the appeals filed by A-1, A-3 and A-5 E and allowing the appeal filed by A-4, the Court HELD: 1. Key witness PW2 aged seven years and sister of the deceased boy identified A-3 during the test identification parade and in the court she identified A-5 F as the person who offered chocolate to her and to her brother and took him away. lnspite of searching cross- examination, PW2 remained consistent throughout. Before she was examined as a witness in the court during trial, her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was G recorded by the Judicial Magistrate (PW13). In his evidence, PW13 has stated that he tested the understanding of witness PW2 and after being satisfied about her understanding, recorded her statement under H 38 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 7 S.C.R. A Section 164 Cr.P.C. When PW2 was examined as a witness in the court during trial, the trial judge had also put preliminary questions to the child witness PW2 and satisfied that she was capable of understanding the questions put to her. PW2 though sole witness, by B concurrent findings courts below found her evidence unassailable. [Paras 12 and 14] [46-H; 47-A-C; 48-A-D] 2. In the test identification parade, PW8 identified A-5 and A-3 as the persons who took away ransom C money from the carrier of his cycle. The evidence of PW8 amply corroborated the evidence of PW2 as to the complicity of A-5 and A-3 in the offence. Evidence of PW2 coupled with the evidence of PW8 clearly established that the accused A-5 and A-3 kidnapped D PW8's son and PW8 informant paid Rs. 1,05,000/- to them as ransom amount. On the e
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.