Rupesh Kumar @ Rupesh Ram vs The State Of Bihar

In all the aforesaid four appeals, appellants were convicted and sentenced by a common judgment in Sessions Trial No. 405 of 2012 by Sri Jitendra

Mishra, learned Adhoc Additional District & Sessions Judge 1st, Bettiah, West Champaran (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Judge’) and as

such, all the appeals were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

All the four appellants by judgment dated09-07-2014 were held guilty and convicted for commission of offence under Sections 364(A)/34, 302/34,

201/34 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘I.P.C.’) and by order dated 15-07-2014, they were sentenced to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Sections 364(A)/34 of the I.P.C. with fine of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each and in default of payment

of fine, they were directed to further undergo imprisonment for six months. Under Sections 302/34 of the I.P.C., they were sentenced to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each and in default of payment of fine, they were directed to further

undergo imprisonment for six months. Under Section 120(B) of the I.P.C., all the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life

with fine of Rs. 10,000/(ten thousand) each and in default of payment, they were directed to further undergo imprisonment for six months. Similarly,

under Section 201/34 of the I.P.C., all the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-

(five thousand) each and in default of payment of fine, they were directed to further undergo imprisonment for three months. All the sentences were

directed to run concurrently.

Before delving with details of the case, it would benecessary to succinctly examine the prosecution case. In the case, minor son of one Neelu Devi

(P.W.6) was kidnapped. The mother of the victim, with a dream to see her son in appropriate position away from her husband (P.W.1) hiring a house

on rental basis, was staying in Village â€" Parsauni, P.S. - Nautan, District â€"West Champaran. Her son was admitted in a school namely Vidya

Vatika School, Chhawni. Her husband (P.W.1) was working in Mumbai. On 13-03-2012, her minor child aged about 11 years went to school for

appearing in class examination by school jeep. Usually, her child was returning in between 1:30 PM to 2:00 PM, however; on 13-03-2012, he did not

return. The mother hectically searched for her child, which went in vain. Finally, on the next date i.e. on 14-03-2012, she filed a written report

regarding missing of her son affixing passport size photograph thereon of her son. This information was given by the mother to her husband also, who

immediately after receiving such information returned back from Mumbai. He alongwith wife also tried to locate their son, but all went in vain. In the

meanwhile, some news published in the newspaper regarding missing of the child of the informant. Subsequently, a poster was pasted beside the

rented house of the mother (P.W.6), through which, it was intimated that the child was in the captive of the accused persons and accused persons

asked for contacting them and on the said poster, a mobile number was also mentioned i.e. 9507177628. Thereafter, one probationer Sub-Inspector of

Police was entrusted to inquire the Sanaha, which was lodged by the mother of the victim. Vinod Kumar Singh, Prob. SubInspector of Police

(P.W.11) on 01-04-2012 submitted a written report to the officer incharge of Town Police Station, Bettiah, in which, he disclosed that on 14-03-2012,

Neelu Devi (P.W.6) wife of Sunil Kumar Pandey (P.W.1), resident of village â€" Parsauni, P.S. Nautan, District â€" West Champaran had submitted

a written report. In the said written report, Neelu Devi had disclosed that she was residing in a rented house of one Balister Raut (P.W.4) in Shiksha

Nagar, Lane no. 2, Bettiah for providing education to her child. Her son Sachin @ Vicky aged about 11 years on 13-03-2012 in the morning at 7:00

AM had gone to school and he did not return house. The informant P.W.11 further stated that in the said context, he had recorded station diary entry

no. 380/12 dated 14-03-2012 and he was given charge to conduct enquiry. While conducting enquiry, he went to the school of Sachin @ Vicky i.e.

Vidya Vatika School Chhawni, where he got an information that on 13-03-2012 the boy at 1:00 PM had gone for his house from the school, but he did

not reach. On 01-04-2012, in the morning at 9:30 AM, he got an information that on the house of neighbour Hanuman Tiwary on the southern wall, a

poster was pasted relating to Sachin @ Vicky. P.W.11 thereafter went there and saw that on southern wall on a plain paper, a hand written poster

was pasted, over which, following fact was recorded:-

“uke rcjst vkye irk & usiky

&&&&&&&&

cztsâ€​k nwcs mQZ (cfyVj izlkn) rqEgkjs ?kj esa tks

fdjk;knkj tks gSA og ukSru ds jgus okys gSaA rqEgkjk cPpk (fcDdh dqekj) tks fd 12/3/2012 ls xk;c gS og gekjs dCts esa gSA tYn ls lEidZ djsa ugh

rks cgqr cqjk gksxkA iqfyl dks buQesZlu ugha

djuk ugha rks rqe le>ksxsA

lEidZ u0

9507177628â€​

P.W.11, thereafter removed the poster from the wall in presence of witnesses and he disclosed that in aforesaid circumstances, it was evident that the

holder of mobile no. 9507177628 and associates had kidnapped Sachin @ Vicky for ransom.

On the basis of said written report of P.W.11, a formal F.I.R., vide Bettiah (Town) P.S. Case No. 192 of 2012, was registered on 01-04-2012 at

15.40 hrs. (3:40 PM) under Section 364(A) of the I.P.C. against holder of mobile no. 9507177628 and other unknown. After lodging F.I.R., the police

started investigation and during investigation, they got some tips from the informant that the victim was seen with some of the accused persons at

particular place. The police also got secret information that some of the accused had assembled in a closed leather factory. Thereafter, teams were

constituted and police rushed to the said leather factory. After some chase, three accused persons were apprehended, who were Ajay Kumar @ Shiv

(appellant in Cr.Appeal DB No. 743 of 2014), Vikash Kumar (appellant in Cr.Appeal DB No. 756 of 2014) and one Ram Nath Ram (since died

during investigation). After their apprehension, their personal search was made, in presence of the witnesses and while personal search was

conducted on Ajay Kumar @ Shiv (appellant in Cr.Appeal DB No. 743 of 2014), from his pocket of full-pant, one Reliance Company Mobile having

SIM of mobile was recovered and a seizure list was prepared on 03-04-2012. In personal search of Vikash Kumar (appellant in Cr.Appeal DB No.

756 of 2014), two mobile phones were recovered besides SIM wrapped in a paper-cutting of Idea Company was recovered. The said SIM was having

number of 9507177628. The same number, which was inscribed on the poster posted near the house of the mother of the deceased. On personal

search of another accused Ram Nath Ram (since died during investigation) from the pocket of his shirt, following articles were recovered:

“1. A news published in Hindi Newspaper at page 3 with the heading ‘Nk= dks vxok dj Hkstk /kedh Hkjk i= A’ 2. One paper cutting with

the heading ‘Nk= dh ckjkenxh ds fy, dk;Z ;kstuk A’

One piece of currency note of Rs. 20/-

One ruling paper containing name of six personswith their mobile number written in pen.â€​

After their apprehension and personal search, it wasconclusively considered that all the three were involved in the kidnapping of child of P.W.6.

Before the police, they made a disclosure that the son of P.W.6 was kidnapped on 13th March, 2012 from a chowk near Durga mandir which was

nearer to tea stall. The confession firstly led to recovery of the dead body, which was buried near a canal. In their confession, the fact emerged that

besides three accused persons, one Madan Ram (appellant in Cr.Appeal DB No. 703 of 2014) was also involved and after kidnapping of the son of

P.W.6, he was firstly brought to the hut of Madan Ram and the son of P.W.6 was confined in the said hut for one or two days. Subsequently, on the

plea of attending nature call, the boy was allowed to move to an area with a bush and since the boy raised alarm and tried to flee away, he was

apprehended, thrashed and finally, Ram Nath Ram pressed his chest resulting his death. After the death, the dead body was kept in the hut of Madan

Ram (appellant in Cr.Appeal DB No. 703 of 2014) for some time and in the late night, from that place, the dead body was carried to a canal near

which the dead body was buried. On a disclosure made by the accused persons, the said hut was also inspected and Madan Ram was apprehended

and thereafter, the dead body of the boy, which was buried near the canal, was extracted. Again, a leading disclosure was made that clothes of the

boy was kept in a polythene bag and it was handed over to one Rupesh Kumar @ Ruplesh Ram (appellant in Cr.Appeal DB No. 761 of 2014) with a

view that at subsequent stage those clothes will be used in demanding ransom.

During investigation, the case was found true andfinally, on 19-06-2012 chargesheet was submitted against:

Ram Nath Ram (died during investigation),

Ajay Kumar @ Shiv (app.in Cr.App.DB No. 743 of 2014),

Vikash Kumar (app. in Cr.Appeal DB No. 756 of 2014),

Madan Ram (app. in Cr.Appeal DB No. 703 of 2014), and

5.Rupesh Rupesh Ram (app.in Cr.App.DB No. 761 of 2014). After submission of chargesheet, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence

on 03-07-2012 and thereafter, the case was committed to the court of sessions on 10-07-2012. After commitment, the case was numbered as Sessions

Trial No. 405 of 2012. In the case, on 18-08-2012, charge was jointly framed against all the accused persons for commission of offence under

Sections 364(A)/34, 302/34, 201/34 and 120(B) of the I.P.C.

To prove its case from the prosecution side, altogether 14 witnesses were examined. Out of 14 witnesses:

P.W.1 Sunil Kumar Pandey is the unfortunate father of the deceased and he had proved his signature on seizure list regarding seizure of poster, which

is marked as Ext. 1 and he also proved signature of one Balister Raut, on the said seizure list, which is marked as Ext. 1/1.

P.W.2 Subodh Kumar Jha was the Principal of the Vidya Vatika School, who disclosed that on the said date i.e. 13-03-2012, the son of P.W.1 had

come to school and by the school jeep, he was dropped at the place i.e. chowk near Durgabag temple as well as near a tea stall of P.W.3 Shambhu

Prasad.

P.W.3 Shambhu Prasad was running a tea stall near Durgabag temple beside the road. He disclosed that on the date i.e. 13-03-2012, the boy from

school had come to his tea stall and he had left his instrument box kept in a polythene bag and thereafter, he was not seen.

P.W.4 Balister Raut is the owner of the house, which was taken on rent by P.W.6 Neelu Devi, mother of the deceased and wife of Sunil Kumar

Pandey (P.W.1).

P.W.5 Narayan Yadav is the driver of the school jeep and he disclosed that on the date of occurrence in between 1:30 PM and 2:00 PM, he had

dropped the victim at the place of stoppage i.e. near the tea stall as well as Durgabag.

P.W.6 Neelu Devi is the mother of the victim and she identified the petition (Sanha) affixed with the passport size photograph of her 11 year old son

and said petition was marked as Ext. 2.

P.W.7 Pawaneshwar Mahto was at the relevant time posted as Block Development Officer and he was deputed as Magistrate to hold Test

Identification Parade in respect of clothes, shoes, sweater and handkerchief of the victim. Those articles were identified in his presence by maternal

uncle of the deceased (ekek), Rajesh Kumar Shukla (P.W.12).

P.W.8 Rajesh Kumar was Sub-Inspector of Police and during investigation, he had rendered assistance to the investigating officer.

P.W.9 Yousuff Ansari was probationer Sub-Inspector of Police. He too had rendered assistance to the investigating officer during investigation.

P.W.10 Dr. Arun Kumar Singh on 04-04-2012 was posted as Medical Officer in M.J.K. Hospital, Bettiah and on the same date, he conducted post-

mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and proved the post-mortem report, which was marked as Ext. 4.

P.W.11 Vinod Kumar Singh, one of the police officer, was entrusted to inquire sanaha filed by P.W.6 and after inquiry, he found a cognizable offence

regarding commission of offence under Section 364(A) of the I.P.C. and he submitted a written report to the officer incharge of Bettiah Town Police

Station. On the basis of his written report, a formal F.I.R., vide Bettiah Town P.S. Case No. 192 of 2012, was lodged.

P.W.12 Rajesh Kumar Shukla, maternal uncle of the deceased (ekek), who had identified clothes of the victim during Test Identification Parade.

P.W.13 Naresh Kumar is the investigating officer.

P.W.14 Narendra Kumar Shukla is the formal witness, who was witness to the inquest report and further he disclosed some relevant facts.

After closure of the prosecution evidence, on 28-11-2013 evidences and circumstances collected during trial against accused persons were

explained to them and their statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.â€) was

recorded on 28-11-2013, in which, they denied charges and claimed regarding false implication and from the defence side also three witnesses were

examined, who are:

“D.W.1 Chandrika Ram, who in his evidence, had tried to depose in favour of Vikash Kumar (appellant in Cr.Appeal DB No. 756 of 2014).

D.W.2 Shiv Nath Ram was examined on behalf of Rupesh Kumar @ Rupesh Ram (appellant in Cr.Appeal DB No. 761 of 2014).

D.W.3 Jagdish Ram was examined on behalf of accused Ajay Kumar @ Shiv (appellant in Cr.Appeal DB No. 743 of 2014) and Vikash Kumar

(appellant in Cr.Appeal DB No. 756 of 2014).â€​

After placing entire evidence, Sri Akhileshwar Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Bipin Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant

in Cr.Appeal DB No. 743 of 2014 (Ajay Kumar @ Shiv) has argued that virtually it was a case of ‘no legal evidence’. He submits that during

entire evidence, none had come forward to claim to be eye-witness to the occurrence. He further submits that the evidence, on which reliance was

placed, was virtually not legal evidence and as such, it was a fit case for acquittal. He submits that the learned Trial Judge had proceeded only on the

basis of confessional statement of accused persons, that too made before the police. According to him, confession made before the police is not

admissible and on the basis of said confession, there was no need for learned Trial Judge to pass judgment of conviction. Sri Singh has heavily placed

reliance on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1966 Supreme Court 119 (Aghnoo Nagesia vs. State of Bihar) and he has

referred to paragraph 21 of the judgment to show that even in a case, in which, on confession made before the police any recovery is made, on the

basis of those materials itself, one may not be held guilty. He has further placed reliance on another judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

reported in A.I.R. 1952 Supreme Court 159 (Kashmira Singh vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh). Besides arguing that the case, being based on

confessional statement of the accused, is not sustainable in the eye of law, he has argued that no proper investigation was done by the police. He

highlighted several deficiencies during investigation and as such, it has been argued that the judgment of conviction and sentence, so far as appellant

Ajay Kumar @ Shiv in Cr.Appeal (DB) No. 743 of 2014 is concerned, is liable to be set aside.

Sri Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel assisted by Sri Krishna Chandra, learned counsel for remaining three appellants, after placing entire

evidences, has argued that the entire prosecution case is required to be disbelieved only on the ground that the dead body, which was shown to be

recovered, was not properly identified. He submits that in absence of proper identification of the dead body, the prosecution was not able to prove

either case of kidnapping or murder. He further submits that ofcourse during investigation, some clothes, as if those clothes were belonging to

deceased, were shown to be recovered and were put on Test Identification Parade and also it was shown to be identified, since none of the appellants

were confronted with those clothes or those clothes were shown to them during trial, no reliance can be placed on the evidence of recovery of

clothes. He submits that accused persons were not at all confronted with those articles. He has further argued that though the learned Trial Judge has

held all the appellants guilty on the basis of confession, fact remains that the police firstly recorded confessional statement of Ram Nath Ram (died

during investigation), which was recorded at 17.20 hours (5:20 PM). He submits that once disclosure was made by Ram Nath Ram regarding location

of dead body, subsequent confession made by Ajay Kumar @ Shiv (appellant in Cr.Appeal DB No. 743 of 2014) and Vikash Kumar (appellant in

Cr.Appeal DB No. 756 of 2014) was having no relevance. He submits that once an information was got on the basis of confession of Ram Nath Ram

that he had killed the boy and buried the dead body near a canal, the said confession was required to be used only against Ram Nath Ram. According

to Sri Thakur, on the basis of confession of Ram Nath Ram, who is already died, other appellants were not required to be held guilty by the learned

Trial Judge. Sri Thakur has also argued that so far as appellant Rupesh Kumar @ Rupesh Ram (appellant in Cr.Appeal DB No. 761 of 2014) is

concerned, the learned Trial Judge has incorrectly convicted him either for offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. or under Section 364(A) of the

I.P.C. He submits that if for the time being, confession of accused is relied upon, facts disclosed in their confession itself indicates that this appellant

Rupesh Kumar @ Rupesh Ram was not at all aware as to how the boy was kidnapped and how he was done to death. He submits that his role had

come into play only after clothes from the dead body of deceased was removed and those clothes were handed over to Rupesh Kumar @ Rupesh

Ram. According to Sri Thakur, such circumstance suggests that Rupesh Kumar @ Rupesh Ram was not at all involved either in kidnapping or murder

of the deceased. Sri Thakur has also argued that the investigating officer had committed several apparent mistakes and illegality. He submits that it

appears that only when news of kidnapping of the son of P.W.6 spread and published in the newspaper, the police started investigating the case and to

save their skin, falsely implicated all the accused persons. He submits that the poster, which was shown to be pasted near the house of P.W.6, was

itself fabricated by the police. He submits that the police has not taken any pain to compare the writing of the said accused with the writing over the

poster. He further submits that it was a case that on the poster, one mobile number was mentioned, but the investigating agency had not taken any

care to collect call details to show any connection in the present case.

Sri Ajay Mishra, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor,at the very outset, has argued that there is no error in the judgment of conviction, however; he

submits that it appears that learned Trial Judge has taken lenient view while imposing sentence. He submits that in our state now-a-days, repeatedly it

is being noticed that the kidnapping has been adopted as an Industry and since in the present case, a minor child was kidnapped and subsequently, he

was brutally murdered, the learned Trial Judge, instead of sentencing all the appellants for imprisonment for life, was required to impose death penalty.

He submits that it was an exceptional circumstance, in which, except death sentence, there was no requirement to pass any other sentence. On the

point of evidence, it has been argued that after getting information regarding involvement of accused persons and getting the information that three

accused persons had assembled in a closed rubber factory, three raiding team was prepared and thereafter, police arrived in the said factory, entered

into the factory and after chase, three accused persons were arrested. Three accused persons were assembled there, who were none else but

appellant(s) Ajay Kumar @ Shiv (Cr.Appeal DB No. 743 of 2014), Vikash Kumar (Cr.Appeal DB No. 756 of 2014) with one Ram Nath Ram (since

died during investigation) were arrested. Immediately after their apprehension and personal search, the SIM wrapped in a paper-cutting was

recovered from the possession of one of the accused, which was having the same number, which was mentioned on the poster i.e. mobile no.

9507177628. Besides the SIM, from possession of one another associate Ram Nath Ram, paper-cuttings were also recovered pertaining to the news

of kidnapping and mode of the police regarding investigation. He submits that this circumstance was itself sufficient to draw an inference that all the

three accused were involved in the crime of kidnapping and murder. He submits that in such circumstances, confession of accused leading to recovery

may not be ignored. He submits that in view of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Evidence Act’), even

though, if a confession is made before the police, but confession leads to recovery, that part of the evidence cannot be ignored. It has been argued that

it is not only case of confession of the accused, but other connecting circumstances are also there to establish regarding involvement of all the accused

persons. So far as case of Rupesh Kumar @ Rupesh Ram (appellant in Cr.Appeal DB No. 761 of 2014) is concerned, he submits that ofcourse in the

confessional statement of co-accused, this fact has come that role of Rupesh Ram had come into play after the cloth of the deceased was handed

over to him for concealment, but fact remains that in confession of the accused, it was disclosed that those clothes were to be used for demanding

ransom. In such situation, he submits that though, Rupesh Kumar had come into picture subsequently, but from his conduct also only inference can be

drawn that the cloth, which he was given to conceal, was to be used for demand of ransom and as such, he submits that there is no error in holding the

appellant Rupesh Kumar guilty for commission of offence under Sections 364(A) of the I.P.C. However, Sri Mishra has not disputed the fact that

circumstances does not suggest that this Rupesh Kumar was involved in murder of the victim, since his role had come much subsequent i.e. after the

murder had taken place.

Sri Mukesh Kumar, learned counsel assisted by SriShivjee Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of informant, adopting the submission of Sri

Ajay Mishra, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, has argued that entire chain of circumstances suggest that all the appellants had conspired together and

thereafter, minor boy of P.W.6 was kidnapped, while he was returning from school and subsequently, he was done to death. He submits that it was

not only end of the matter, but even after death, the dead body was buried near the canal, the criminal mind of the appellants was evident that they

preserved the cloths for the purposes of demanding ransom from the parents of the victim.

Besides hearing, we have minutely examinedentire evidence on record i.e. oral and documentary evidence.

P.W.1 Sunil Kumar Pandey, unfortunate father ofthe deceased, in his evidence has stated that his son Sachin @ Vicky was student of Class I in

Vidya Vatika School located in the Chhawani area. On 13-03-2012, his son Vicky had left for school in the morning, but he did not return till evening.

Thereafter, his wife, who was staying in Siksha Nagar, Baswariya in a rented house of one Balister Raut (P.W.4), gave an application to Town Police

Station regarding missing of son. Thereafter, his wife telephoned him, at that very time, this witness was in Mumbai. After getting information, he

came to Bettiah from Mumbai and he also started searching his son. Ten days after his arrival, one Daroga Ji came and told that on a tea stall near

Durgabag temple, one polythene bag containing instrument box was lying. Thereafter, he with Daroga Ji went to the tea stall. Tea stall owner

informed that on 13-03-2012 at 1:30 PM, one boy had come and left his instrument box there. He had taken some meal there. The said polythene

containing articles were identified by his wife to be of his son Vicky. Subsequently, one poster was noticed on the wall of house of one Hanuman

Prasad, over which, name of one Tabrej of Nepal was written and threatening was given not to inform police and on the poster one mobile number

was also mentioned. He tried to contact over the said mobile, but failed. Subsequently, Vinod Kumar Singh (P.W.11) came to seize the poster. On the

seizure list, his signature was obtained, which was marked as Ext. 1. He also proved the signature of Balister Raut (land-lord/P.W.4) and same was

marked as Ext. 1/1. He deposed that after noticing the contents over the poster, he understood that his son was kidnapped for ransom. In paragraph 2

of his evidence, he stated that dead body of his son was found in Ratanmala. In the land near Ratanmala, the dead body was buried. He further stated

that in the case, appellants Ajay Kumar @ Shiv (appellant in Cr.Appeal DB No. 743 of 2014), Ram Nath Ram (died) and Vikash Kumar (appellant in

Cr.Appeal DB No. 756 of 2014) were arrested and they had given disclosure, on the basis of which, dead body of his son was recovered. After

hearing this news, he became unconscious and this was the reason that his relatives had gone to collect the body. This witness was crossexamined,

however; on examining the same, we are of the opinion that nothing could be extracted to create any doubt on his evidence. Moreover, this witness

has not claimed to be eyewitness to the occurrence.

After referring to evidence of P.W.1, father of thedeceased, it would be appropriate to refer to the evidence of Neelu Devi (P.W.6), mother of the

deceased and wife of P.W.1. P.W.6, in her evidence, deposed that Sachin Kumar was her son and he was aged about 11 years. On the date and time

of occurrence, she was in the rented house in Shiksha Nagar, Baswariya. She deposed that she was staying there only for imparting education to her

son Sachin. She said that Sachin was also known with his nick name of Vicky. Her husband was doing work in Mumbai. Her son was in Class I in

Vidya Vatika School, Chhawni. Her son was going to school by the school jeep and he was being dropped at 1:30 PM to 2:00 PM by the jeep near

Durgabag and from there, the victim used to go on foot. On the date of occurrence, her son had gone to school and there was examination. Keeping

the instrument box in a polythene bag, he had gone to school. On the date of occurrence, he had worn light yellow shirt, maroon colour half sweater,

full pant and shoes. Though, her son had gone to school, he did not return and she searched for her son and finally, she went to the Bettiah town police

station and submitted a complaint regarding missing of her son. She identified the said application which was marked as Ext. 2. She informed father of

her son Sachin. She got information that on the southern wall of her neighbour Hanuman Sah, one poster was pasted, she read it, in which, it was

written that Vicky @ Sachin was in their custody. Below the poster, one mobile number was mentioned for contact. She tried to contact over mobile,

which was shown to be ‘Switched off’. Police came and seized the poster. On the basis of contents of the poster, she came to know that her

son was kidnapped. About 15-16 days from the date of first occurrence, dead body of her son was found in village Ratanmala. The dead body was

buried in the land. She disclosed that she got an information that her son was kidnapped for ransom by Vikash, Ajay, Ram Nath, Rupesh and Madan

and they, after killing her son, had buried the dead body. This information she got from the police. In paragraph 5 of her cross-examination, she stated

that police after visiting her house had disclosed the name of the accused. She further admits that she was not having any animosity with anyone.

P.W.5 Narayan Yadav, driver of the school jeep,deposed that he was collecting the said boy in the morning at 7:00 AM near Durgabag pool and

about 1:30 PM, he was dropping him at the same place. He stated that on the date of occurrence, he had brought boy on the jeep to school and he had

dropped at the same destination. In cross-examination, he stated that on the date when he dropped the boy, at that very time, there was none.

P.W.2 Subodh Kumar Jha was the Principal of theVidya Vatika School. He deposed that working hour of the school was 7:15 AM to 1:00 PM.

Sachin Kumar Pandey @ Vicky (deceased) was regular student of Class I in his school and he was coming and going by jeep no. BR-05-9921. The

jeep was of the school and driver of the jeep was Ram Narayan Yadav (P.W.5). He further deposed that the boy was being dropped by the jeep near

Durgabag mandir and on the date of occurrence, he was dropped at the same place by the jeep driver. He further deposed that in the night on the

same date someone informed him that boy had not reached his house.

P.W.3 Shambhu Prasad was tea stall owner and hedeposed that on the date of occurrence in between 1:30 PM and 2:00 PM on his tea stall, the

boy had come. He stated that the boy leaving the polythene had gone and thereafter, he did not return. After police and family member of the boy

arrived, he handed over the said polythene. In paragraph 3 of his crossexamination, he stated that the said boy on earlier occasion had also come to his

shop.

P.W.4 Balister Raut is the owner of the house,which was hired by mother of the deceased on rent and he stated that he was witness to the

seizure list relating to the poster and his signature was earlier marked as Ext. 1/1.

P.W.7 Pawaneshwar Mahto at the relevant time on20-05-2015 was Block Development Officer, Bettiah and on the same date at 11:00 A.M.

while he was in office, the investigating officer of Bettiah town P.S. Case No. 192 of 2012 provided an order of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. As

per the order, he was directed to conduct Test Identification Parade in respect of recovered cloth etc. of the deceased. On the same date, he

conducted T.I.P. in Bettiah Town Police Station premises in presence of witnesses. In the Test Identification Parade, shoes, handkerchief, sweater,

shirt, full-pant etc. of victim alongwith similar nine other articles were provided to him for conducting T.I.P. In the said T.I.P., witness Rajesh Kumar

Shukla (P.W.12), maternal uncle of the deceased (ekek) identified seized articles claiming to be articles of victim. This witness P.W.5 prepared T.I.

chart and said chart was marked as Ext. 2 (corrected Ext. 3) and he proved his signature on T.I.chart, which was marked as Ext. 2/1 (corrected Ext.

3/1). In cross-examination, he further clarified as to which cloth were having which mark. Virtually, in cross-examination, he further established the

case of the prosecution. In the cross-examination, no relevant question could be asked to create any doubt on the evidence of P.W.7.

P.W.12 Rajesh Kumar Shukla was the maternaluncle of the deceased. In his evidence, he deposed that occurrence had taken place on 13th

March, 2012 at about 1:00 PM. On the same date in the morning at 7:00 AM, the child had gone through School jeep to school i.e. Vidya Vatika

School, Chhawni, however; he did not return. Search was made but without any result and thereafter, on 14th March, 2012, an information was given

to Bettiah Town Police Station. Thereafter, on 31st March, 2012 on the side of house of this witness, a poster was pasted, over which, there was one

mobile number for contact. Poster was for the purposes of ransom. Thereafter, police arrived and seized the poster. He further deposed that

subsequently dead body was recovered and he saw the dead body. The dead body was only with under-garment.

There was no school uniform on the dead body. Subsequently, police handed over dead body to them and thereafter, cremation was done. He further

deposed that on 21-05-2012, police informed his sister (P.W.6) for coming to police station. Thereafter, this witness was informed by his sister

(P.W.6). On the said date, condition of his sister (P.W.6) was not good and thereafter, he proceeded to police station. In police station, in presence of

Block Development Officer, clothes and articles of the deceased were got identified. Those articles were mixed up with other articles and clothes.

This witness deposed that he identified the cloth of deceased and thereafter, Block Development officer prepared a paper. He reiterated that the

deceased was kidnapped for ransom by Madan Ram (appellant in Cr.Appeal DB No. 703 of 2014), Vikash Ram (appellant in Cr.Appeal DB No. 756

of 2014), Ajay Ram (appellant in Cr.Appeal DB No. 743 of 2014) and Rupesh Ram (appellant in Cr.Appeal DB No. 761 of 2014). He further

deposed that the cloth of deceased was seized by the police. In paragraph 5 of his cross-examination, he clarified that he could identify the dress of his

Hkxhuk (nephew), since he himself had got the cloth stitched from tailor and he identified the cloth with the name of tailor.

P.W.11 Vinod Kumar Singh is the informant of thecase. On 14-03-2012, he was posted in Bettiah Town Police Station, as Police Sub-Inspector

and at that very time, one Sri Naresh Kumar (P.W.13) was officer incharge of the said police station. On the same date i.e. 14-03-2012, Neelu Devi

(P.W.6) had given an application regarding missing of her son. On the basis of such written information, the officer of Bettiah Police Station recorded

sanaha entry, vide Sanaha Entry No. 380 dated 14-03-2012. On the application of Neelu Devi, sanaha entry was made and said sanaha was marked

to this witness for conducting inquiry. He also proved the writing and signature of SubInspector of Police K.K.Choudhary on the sanaha entry, which

was marked as Ext. 2/1. After recording sanaha entry, he was authorised to conduct inquiry. While conducting inquiry, he had gone to the school of

the victim i.e. Vidya Vatika School and got information that on 13-03-2012 at about 1:00 PM, he had left for his house but he did not reach his house.

During inquiry, on 01-04-2012 in the morning at 9:30 AM, he got an information that on the house of one Hanuman Sah, which was near the house of

Sachin (Victim), over wall one poster in relation to Sachin @ Vicky (deceased) was affixed. Thereafter, he went there and noticed that on the poster,

Tabrej Alam, Nepal was written and it was also indicated that the boy was in his captive since 13-03-2012 and it was further indicated to contact

immediately otherwise dire consequences would follow. It was further mentioned that police must not be informed and on the same poster in bottom,

one mobile number, vide 9507177628, was written. This witness thereafter prepared seizure list in respect of the poster and he proved the seizure list,

which was marked as Ext. 1/2. On the basis of said information, on 01-042012 itself this witness submitted a written application to the officer incharge

of Bettiah Town Police Station. He also proved the said application i.e. written report, which was marked as Ext. 4. On the basis of said written

report, formal F.I.R. was drawn. After registering F.I.R., Sri Naresh Kumar, officer incharge of the Bettiah Town Police Station took up the

investigation and his re-statement was also recorded. Thereafter, on 03-04-2012 with officer incharge, in the said connection, he was sent for

conducting search. While they reached near Belbag Leather Factory, he noticed that earlier two teams had already arrived, however before starting

search, as per order of the officer incharge, he returned back to the police station. This witness was cross-examined. In paragraph 8 of his cross-

examination, he reiterated that before search he had already returned back to the police station. Otherwise, in his cross-examination, nothing is there

to raise any suspicion.

P.W.8 Rajesh Kumar on 03-04-2012 was posted asSub-Inspector of Police in Bettiah Town Police Station. The officer incharge of the police

station Sri Naresh Kumar (P.W.13), who was investigating officer of Bettiah Town P.S. Case No. 192 of 2012, had asked him to render assistance

during investigation. Besides him, one probationer Sub-Inspector of Police (P.W.11), Sub-Inspector of Police Yousuff Ansari (P.W.9) and probationer

Sub-Inspector of Police Pramod Prasad (not examined) were asked to assist the investigating officer during investigation. On the same date with

investigating officer, they proceeded and reached near Durga mandir in Bettiah where from informer they got information that abducted boy Sachin

was seen with Ajay Kumar @ Shiv (appellant in Cr.Appeal DB No. 743 of 2014) and Vikash Kumar (appellant in Cr.Appeal DB No. 756 of 2014),

both resident of Baswariya. Thereafter, they went to Baswariya and on inquiry, they got an information that Ajay Kumar (appellant in Cr.Appeal DB

No. 743 of 2014) and Vikash Kumar (appellant in Cr.Appeal DB No. 756 of 2014) with others in the area Belbag where a leather factory was closed,

standing there. This witness also got information that Ajay Kumar (appellant in Cr.Appeal DB No. 743 of 2014) was wearing purple stripe shirt.

Thereafter, this witness with others reached near leather factory and noticed that three accused persons after seeing police party had started to

fleeing away, however; all the three accused persons were apprehended. In presence of two independent witnesses, all the three accused persons

disclosed their name as Ram Nath Ram (since died), Ajay Kumar @ Shiv (appellant in Cr.Appeal DB No. 743 of 2014) and Vikash Kumar (appellant

in Cr.Appeal DB No. 756 of 2014). All the three accused persons were searched in presence of independent witnesses and in the said search, from

possession of Vikash (appellant in Cr.Appeal DB No. 756 of 2014), two mobile set and two SIM were recovered, from one of the pocket of his jeans

pant and from another pocket a SIM of Idea company wrapped in a newspaper cutting was recovered and thereafter, a seizure list was prepared.

Subsequently, pocket of Ajay Kumar (appellant in Cr.Appeal DB No. 743 of 2014) was searched and from pocket of full-pant, one mobile affixed

with SIM of Reliance company was recovered and seized. Personal search of third accused namely Ram Nath Ram (died during investigation) was

also done and in the said search, from his shirt pocket, a piece of newspaper cutting containing news of kidnapping of Sachin (victim) was found and

seizure list was prepared. After their apprehension, all the three arrested accused persons were examined by Sub-Inspector of Police cum officer

incharge Sri Naresh Kumar (PW.13), one-by-one and all the accused persons confessed that they had kidnapped Sachin and two days after his

kidnapping, since he was murdered, his dead body was buried near Ratanmala. This witness further stated that thereafter S.D.P.O. namely Sri Sharad

Kumar and officer incharge of Muffasil Bettiah Police Station namely Priya Ranjan also arrived for their assistance. They alongwith arrested accused

persons proceeded to Ratanmala and on disclosure made by those accused persons, one another accused namely Madan Ram (appellant in Cr.Appeal

DB No. 703 of 2014) was also arrested and all of them then reached Ratanmala. At Ratanmala, officer incharge of Majhaulia Police Station,

Magistrate and Chowkidar of Ratanmala also arrived and in presence of learned Magistrate and others, on disclosure made by accused persons in a

lonely place, buried dead body of Sachin was extracted and seized. At that very place, the investigating officer prepared inquest report and dead body

was sent for post-mortem to M.J.K. Hospital. After post-mortem examination, dead body was handed over to relatives of the deceased. He also

identified Vikash Kumar (appellant in Cr.Appeal DB No. 756 of 2014), Ajay Kumar (appellant in Cr.Appeal DB No. 743 of 2014) and Madan Ram

(appellant in Cr.Appeal DB No. 703 of 2014), who were present in dock, however; one of the accused Ram Nath Ram had already died. In

paragraph - 6 of his cross-examination, he stated that the information regarding kidnapping was received by him in the police station. He further stated

that he participated in search, however; he had not conducted any investigation. He further reiterated that in his presence arrest memo was prepared,

arrest memo was prepared at the place where accused were arrested i.e. the area namely Belbag. Further in paragraph - 11 of his cross-examination,

he clarified that in Ratanmala before their arrival, none were present. Meaning thereby that this witness has clarified that the dead body was

recovered only on the disclosure made by the accused persons. In paragraph - 15 of his cross-examination, he further stated that accused Madan

Ram (appellant in Cr.Appeal DB No. 703 of 2014) was got identified by co-accused Ram Nath Ram.

P.W.9 Yousuff Ansari on 01-04-2012 was probationer Sub-Inspector of Police and posted in Bettiah Town Police Station and he had rendered

assistance to the investigating officer of Bettiah Town P.S. Case No. 192 of 2012 during investigation. He deposed that on 01-04-2012 he alongwith

officer incharge cum investigating officer Naresh Kumar (P.W.13) and other officers, who were assisting the investigating officer namely Pramod

Kumar, Police Sub- Inspector (not examined), Vinod Kumar Singh (P.W.11), Rajesh Kumar (P.W.8), probationer Sub-Inspector of Police were also

posted there. On the said date, they reached near Durga Mandir. Thereafter, the investigating officer Naresh Kumar (P.W.13) got information from

informer that Sachin @ Vicky (deceased) was earlier seen with kidnappers namely Ajay Kumar @ Shiv (appellant in Cr.Appeal DB No. 743 of 2014)

and Vikash Kumar (appellant in Cr.Appeal DB No. 756 of 2014) near Baswariya and all those accused persons had assembled in a closed leather

factory. He said that the information was also specific that Ajay Kumar @ Shiv (appellant in Cr.Appeal DB No. 743 of 2014) was wearing a purple

colour stripe shirt. With a view to get exact information, they reached leather factory where they noticed that there were three accused and one was

wearing purple colour stripe shirt. The accused persons after seeing them started fleeing away, however; they were arrested. In presence of two

independent witnesses in accordance with law their personal search was conducted. This witness also reiterated as to which articles were recovered

from which of the accused person like P.W.8. He further deposed that all the three arrested accused persons confessed that they had kidnapped

Sachin @ Vicky and firstly the victim was concealed in the hut of Madan Ram (appellant in Cr.Appeal DB No. 703 of 2014) and thereafter, he was

killed and at a particular place, the dead body was buried. They also confessed that they can show the place where the boy was kept during captive

period and the place where the dead body was buried. Madan Ram (appellant in Cr.Appeal DB No. 703 of 2014) was subsequently

arrested.S.D.P.O. Sadar also arrived for assistance and they went to Ratanmala. Madan Ram (appellant in Cr.Appeal DB No. 703 of 2014) was

arrested. Officer incharge of Majhaulia police station with Magistrate arrived and thereafter, on disclosure made by all the accused i.e. Ram Nath

Ram, Vikash and Ajay with the help of Chowkidar, dead body of Vicky was extracted from the land, where inquest report was prepared and dead

body was sent for post-mortem. In paragraph 2, he deposed that thereafter they alongwith Ram Nath Ram went to Dhoom Nagar near Tirhut canal

and on disclosure made by Ram Nath arrested RupeshRam (appellant in Cr.Appeal DB No. 761 of 2014), who was running a meat shop. Rupesh too

confessed his guilt and on the basis of his confessional statement, from the HkqlkSyh (thatched house) of one Sukhdeo Ram, sweater, shirt-pant,

shoes of Sachin @ Vicky (deceased) kept in two bags were recovered and seized. In cross-examination, it was reiterated that the cloth and articles of

deceased were recovered only on the basis of disclosure made by Rupesh Ram (appellant in Cr.Appeal DB No. 761 of 2014). This witness also

identified Ajay, Rupesh, Vikash, who were present in dock. This witness too was cross-examined at length but nothing could be extracted to create

doubt on the evidence of P.W.9.

P.W.14 Narendra Kumar Shukla is the witness tothe inquest report in respect of dead body of Sachin @ Vicky. The inquest report was prepared

on 03-04-2012 at about 9:15 AM and he proved the inquest report, which was marked as Ext. 8. He deposed that the dead body was recovered on the

southern bank of the canal. He clarified that there was no water in the canal since cleaning work was going on. He stated that at that very time, there

was police officer and Magistrate also. He described that the dead body was wearing only under-garment. There was white ganji and cream colour

under-wear, which was lacerated with soil. In his presence, the dead body was extracted and in his presence, papers were prepared by the police and

he was asked to put his signature and only thereafter, he had put his signature.

P.W.10 Dr. Arun Kumar Singh on 04-04-2012 wasposted as medical officer in M.J.K. Hospital, Bettiah and on the same date at about 10:15 AM,

he conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Sachin Kumar @ Vicky aged about 11 years, son of Sunil Kumar Pandey of village

Parsauni, P.S. Nautan, District â€" West Champaran, presently; Shiksha Nagar, lane no. 2, P.S. - Town and he noticed following facts:-

“Whole body is covered by soils. On cleaning neck and face areas - Abrasions and bruises found on both side of neck and front of neck. On

opening trachea - the trachea cartilages found fractured and trachea was full of froth and soil.

No other external injuries found. All other viscera where pale, urinary bladder empty, stomach empty, heart right empty left full.

According to above findings, the cause of death is due to throttling (killing by pressure on throat) leading to hypoxia.

Time elapsed since death and P.M. examination is more than 72 hrs.â€​

This witness has proved the post-mortem report, which was marked as Ext. 3.

The investigating officer namely Naresh Kumar, who was Officer Incharge of Bettiah Town Police Station was examined as P.W.13. Since the

case is mainly based on recovery of SIM, having SIM no., which was inscribed on the poster, paper-cuttings relating to news of kidnapping of the

victim, recovery of clothes of the victim and recovery of dead body of the deceased on disclosure made by the accused persons, it would be

necessary to minutely examine the evidence of investigating officer. In his evidence, he stated that on

14-03-2012 he was officer incharge of the Bettiah Town Police Station and on the same date, he had received written complaint of Neelu Devi

(P.W.6), wherein it was disclosed that her son Sachin Kumar @ Vicky had not returned from school. Thereafter, station diary Sanaha no. 380/12

dated 14-03-2012 was recorded and regarding inquiry of the said sanaha, SubInspector of Police Sri Vinod Kumar Singh (P.W.11) was authorised. On

01-04-2012, the inquiry officer on inquiry of Sanaha no. 380/12 submitted a written report with a seizure list.

On the basis of same, formal F.I.R., vide Bettiah Town P.S. Case No. 192/12, was registered under Section 364(A) of the I.P.C. and he took up

investigation of the case. Thereafter, he recorded re-statement of Vinod Kumar Singh (P.W.11) and during investigation, recorded the statement of

other witnesses including Neelu Devi (P.W.6), Sunil Kumar Pandey (P.W.1), Balister Raut (P.W.4) etc. Subsequently, he went to the office of

Superintendent of Police and tried to get information regarding SIM of mobile no. i.e. 9507177628 and tried to collect call details, name of holder of the

mobile SIM, customer application form and he obtained the same. He also inspected place of occurrence. According to him, first place of occurrence

was near Belbag, the road which proceeds towards Durga mandir and near the road, there was a tea stall of Shambhu Prasad (P.W.3). Thereafter,

he contacted informer regarding whereabout of the victim i.e. Sachin @ Vicky. He also obtained application form and I.D.proof in respect of mobile

no. 9507177628 and it was noticed that it was running in the name of one Laxman Ram, however the investigating officer recorded that on the basis

of forged document, such SIM was obtained. He proved the customer application form and I.D.proof which was marked as Ext. 3 and 4 respectively.

It was inferred that the mobile number was mentioned on the poster, which was only mentioned for the purposes of collecting ransom money. This

witness further deposed that informer gave information that 20-22 days back immediately after being dropped by the school jeep, one student wearing

maroon colour sweater, black full-pant, shoes was seen with Ajay Kumar @ Shiv (appellant in Cr. Appeal DB No. 743 of 2014) with his one another

friend. Informer further informed that Ajay Kumar @ Shiv with other two associates were present in a closed leather factory near Belbag. He further

stated that he alongwith other assisting officers proceeded towards closed leather factory situated in Belbag and after their arrival, three accused

persons started fleeing away, however; they were over powered and apprehended. The arrested accused persons on being asked in presence of

independent witnesses disclosed theirname as Vikash Kumar S/o Laxman Ram (appellant in Cr.Appeal DB No. 756 of 2014), Ajay Kumar @ Shiv

S/o Babu Lal Ram (appellant in Cr.Appeal DB No. 743 of 2014) and Ram Nath Ram S/o late Dhunmun Ram (since died). In presence of independent

witnesses, personal search of three apprehended persons was made. On the personal search from possession of Vikash Kumar (appellant in

Cr.Appeal DB No. 756 of 2014), from one pocket, one mobile phone of Lawa company containing SIM of Vodafone and one another old mobile was

found and from another pocket, a SIM of IDEA company wrapped in piece of paper having no. 9507177628 was found, the same mobile number,

which was mentioned on the poster.

He prepared the seizure list and proved the said seizure list, which was marked as Ext. 5. On the personal search of Ajay Kumar @ Shiv (appellant in

Cr.Appeal DB No. 743 of 2014), one mobile was found, which was seized and the seizure list was marked as Ext. 5/1. On personal search of Ram

Nath Ram, from his pocket of shirt, one page no. 3 of Hindustan Paper containing news regarding kidnapping of school boy with another piece of

paper, over which, in pen, name and address of six persons were mentioned and one currency note of Rs. 20/- were found and all those articles were

seized by a seizure list, which was marked as Ext. 5/2. The SIM wrapped in paper was marked as material Ext. 1, Lawa mobile recovered from

accused Vikash was marked as material Ext. 2, one another mobile recovered of “Form mobile†was marked as material Ext. 2/1. Mobile

recovered from accused Ajay was marked as material Ext. 2/2. Paper cutting containing news of kidnapping was marked as material Ext. 2/3. This

witness further stated that after being arrested, all the three accused persons confessed regarding kidnapping and murder of the victim boy and this

witness recorded their confessional statement. The confessional statement recorded by the police in respect of Ajay Kumar @ Shiv (appellant in

Cr.Appeal DB No. 743 of 2014) was marked as Ext. 6 (corrected Ext. 9), confessional statement of Vikash Kumar (appellant in Cr.Appeal DB No.

756 of 2014) was marked as Ext. 6/1 (corrected Ext. 9/1), confessional statement of accused Ram Nath Ram (since died) was marked as Ext. 6/2

(corrected Ext. 9/2) and confessional statement of accused Rupesh Kumar @ Rupesh Ram (appellant in Cr.Appeal DB No. 761 of 2014) was

marked as Ext. 6/3 (corrected Ext. 9/3). In the confessional statement, Ajay Kumar @ Shiv, Vikash Kumar and Ram Nath Ram confessed their guilt

and gave categorical picture as to how the boy was kidnapped, thereafter, he was kept in a hut of Madan Ram (appellant in Cr.Appeal DB No. 703 of

2014) and thereafter, the boy was killed and subsequently, the dead body was buried near a canal. This witness/investigating officer (P.W.13) further

stated that on disclosure made by aforesaid accused persons, other two accused namely Madan Ram (appellant in Cr.Appeal DB No. 703 of 2014)

and Rupesh Ram (appellant in Cr.Appeal DB No. 761 of 2014) were apprehended. Madan Ram (appellant in Cr.Appeal DB No. 703 of 2014) in his

confession described as to how the boy was kept in his hut and Rupesh Ram (appellant in Cr.Appeal DB No.761 of 2014) confessed that he had kept

the clothes and other articles of the victim in a polythene bag and had concealed. His confession also indicates that the said cloth was kept for the

purposes of getting ransom amount by showing cloth. This witness deposed that all the three accused in their confessional statement had confessed

that kidnapping was made for collecting ransom money. Even after showing the cloth of the deceased, they were contemplating to collect ransom

money. In confession, the accused had accepted that he had taken out cloth from the dead body of Sachin and buried the dead body on the bank of

canal in Ratanmala. They confessed that they had handed over shirt pant etc. of deceased to Rupesh Ram, resident of Dhum Nagar. They further

confessed that they can give the lead for recovery of clothes. Thereafter, this witness stated that they proceeded alongwith three arrested accused

persons towards Ratanmala and when they reached near canal of Ratanmala, they further arrested one another accused, who was fleeing away, who

disclosed his name as Madan Ram. Thereafter, they started digging the place shown by arrested accused persons with a view to dig out the dead

body. The dead body was buried about 4-5 feet deeper and dead body of a boy was recovered. All the three accused after showing the said dead

body stated that the said dead body was of Sachin @ Vicky. The inquest report was prepared and marked as Ext. 7. P.W.13 further deposed that in

the case, one another place of occurrence was a hut of Madan Ram (appellant in Cr.Appeal DB No. 703 of 2014). It was in the centre of a field. In

this hut, Sachin @ Vicky after his kidnapping was kept. This witness thereafter described about this place in detail. The accused persons further

disclosed the place, which was filled with bushes and about 15 feet away from the park where the kidnapped boy was done to death. This witness in

the same paragraph in his evidence also described about the place of occurrence i.e. bank of river near Ratanmala, from where, dead body was

extracted. Thereafter, the investigating officer deposed that accused persons were carried to Dhumnagar, which was within the jurisdiction of Nautan

police station. On lead given by Ram Nath Ram, Rupesh Ram was arrested and he was inquired on the point of cloth of victim. This Rupesh Ram

confessed that cloth of Sachin was concealed in the HkqlkSyh (Bhushauli) of Sukhdeo Ram and further disclosed that he can get those articles

recovered. His confessional statement was also recorded and it was marked as Ext. 6/3 (corrected Ext. 9/3). On the basis of lead given by Rupesh

Ram in presence of witnesses from the bhusauli of Sukhdeo Ram two bags containing maroon colour sweater, fullshirt, over which it was written as

“M Style†containing sticker of ‘New Style Tailor’, one black full-pant, one pair of black shoe, a cotton handkerchief of cream colour, same

was recovered and sealed. This seizure list was marked as Ext. 5/2. The maroon colour sweater was marked as material Ext. 3, shirt was marked as

material Ext. 3/1, Full pant was marked as material Ext. 3/2, handkerchief was marked as material Ext. 3/3 and one pair shoes were marked as

material Ext. 3/4. All those articles were produced by this witness during the trial. After investigation, finding the case true, he submitted chargesheet

against Ram Nath Ram (since died), Ajay Kumar @ Shiv

(appellant in Cr.Appeal DB No. 743 of 2014), Vikash Kumar

(appellant in Cr.Appeal DB No. 756 of 2014), Madan Ram

(appellant in Cr.Appeal DB No. 703 of 2014) and Rupesh Ram (appellant in Cr.Appeal DB No. 761 of 2014). This witness was also cross-examined,

but in his cross-examination, nothing has come to create doubt on his evidence.

After closure of prosecution evidence, entireevidence and circumstances were explained to all the appellants and their statement under Section

313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded on the same date i.e. on 28-11-2013, however they denied and to demolish the prosecution case on behalf of the

defence, three defence witnesses were examined.

D.W.1 Chandrika Ram was examined on behalf ofthe Vikash Kumar and he tried to develop a case as if Vikash Kumar (appellant in Cr.Appeal

DB No. 756 of 2014) was apprehended at 12:00 noon on 03-04-2012 for interrogation and secondly, he tried to give a certificate that Vikash Kumar

and Ajay Kumar were having good character.

D.W.2 Shiv Nath Ram was examined on behalf ofthe Rupesh Kumar (appellant in Cr.Appeal DB No. 761 of 2014) and he deposed as if Rupesh

Kumar was having clean antecedent and was having no connection with the crime.

D.W.3 Jagdish Ram was examined on behalf ofAjay and he deposed that on 03-04-2014, police had taken Ajay and stated that Ajay Ram was

having good character and there was no complaint against them.

On examination of entire evidence, it is evidentthat the involvement of two appellant namely Ajay Kumar @ Shiv (appellant in Cr.Appeal DB No.

743 of 2014) and Vikash Kumar (appellant in Cr.Appeal DB No. 756 of 2014) was established immediately when they were arrested with one Ram

Nath Ram and from their possession, a SIM, having number which was mentioned on the poster relating to kidnapping of the victim, was recovered

and also paper cutting from their possession containing news item relating to kidnapping of the boy was recovered. Those facts were sufficient to

draw an inference that those accused persons were directly involved in the kidnapping of the boy. After they were arrested, their confessional

statement was recorded by the investigating officer. It is true that at three different time confession of three accused persons were recorded but fact

remains that all the three accused persons were arrested while all the three had assembled in a lonely and closed leather factory. This conduct is

sufficient to draw an inference that all the three were knowing everything in relation to the occurrence. It is settled that on the basis of circumstances

and conduct, an inference can be drawn regarding conspiracy in between the accused persons. This was not only end in the matter, but on the basis of

confessional statement, certain relevant fact had come leading to recovery of dead body, which was concealed and buried on the bank of a closed

canal near Ratanmala. Since confession had led to recovery of dead body and thereafter, on confession of another accused, uniform of deceased,

which was lacerated worn by the deceased was recovered, the confession of accused persons may not be disbelieved, in view of Sections 25 and 26

of the Evidence Act. It is true that confession made before the police, in view of Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, is treated as

‘inadmissible’ but the law-maker had already carved out an exception to those provisions, which has been incorporated in Section 27 of the

Evidence Act. Meaning thereby that even if a confession is made before the police after an accused is arrested and on such confession, the fact

which was only within the knowledge of the accused, who made confession, had emerged, his confession shall be treated as ‘admissible’. For

the purposes of placing reliance on the confessional statement, it is necessary that such confession is made by an accused after his arrest. In the

present case, it is specific case of prosecution that they were apprehended and arrested and thereafter, their confessional statement was recorded.

The confession had led to recovery of dead body as well as uniform/cloth of the deceased. Accordingly, confession of accused in the present case

may not be over-looked. Now, it would be necessary to reproduce the confessional statement of the accused persons, ofcourse, one of the accused

died namely Ram Nath Ram.

Confessional Statement of Rupesh Ram aged 25 yrs. S/o Hira Lal Ram at Dhum Nagar Gulab tola PS Nautan Distt. W. Champaran recorded by SI

Naresh Kumar SHO Town (Bettiah) at near Tirhut Canal 332 site. Dhm Nagar on 4/4/12 at 11/45 Hrs. in connection with Town P.S. Case No.

192/12 dt. 1/4/12 U/S 364(A) IPC.

gekjk uke :isâ€k jke mez 25 o’kZ djhc is0 ghjk yky jke lk0 ?kqeuxj ukSru xqykc Vksyk Fkkuk ukSru ft0 i0 pEikj.k gSA eSa vkt fnukad 4@4@12

dks le; 11@45 cts vius ehV dh nqdku ij rhjgqr dsuky ds ikl vki uxj Fkkuk ds iqfyl inkf/kdkjh ds le{k fouk fdlh Hk;] nckc ,oa izyksHku ds LosPNk

iwoZd O;ku nsrs gS fd esjk exkZ dk ehV dckc dk nqdku gSA esjk nqdku lquâ€kku ,sfj;k esa gksus ds ,sfj;k Hkj ds vijk/kh vkdj nk: “kjkc ehV [kkrs

gSaA rFkk ckrphr djrs gSaA esjs ikl vdlj jkeukFk jke] fodkl rFkk vt; Hkh vkrs Fks rFkk ehV nk: [kkrs ihrs FksA [kkus ihus ds Øe esa jkeukFk ls

gekjh nksLrh gks xbZA bu rhuksa ds vykos jesâ€k jke (ITI dk jgus okyk rFkk mldk viuk eaxyiqj gS) vo/ksâ€k tks ujdfV;kxat dk jgus okyk gSA rFkk

liok Vksyk esa mldk llqjky gSA fjadq tks clofj;k dk jgus okyk gSA ekLVj Hkh ujdfV;k xat dk gSA jesâ€k] vo/ksâ€k fjadq ekLVj dk ,d xzqi gSA ;s

yksx eNyh yksd eqQ~Qfly] ?kqe uxj ds dokM+k ds ikl vkSjr ds xqzi dk iSlk tek dk Hkh ;s yksx ywVikV fd;s gaSA bruk dke :i;k rFkk eksVjlkbfdy

ywVuk gSA vkt ls 10 jkst igys jkeukFk ,d >ksyk esa cPpk dk diM+k ysdj vk;k rFkk cksyk fd os fodkl vt; feydj ,d yM+dk dk vigj.k fd;s gSaA mlds ?kj

okys dks diM+k fn[kk dj :Ik;k ysuk gSA vius ikl fNik nksA tc dgsaxsa rks rqe ml LFkku ij j[k nsukA rFkk tc ml yM+dk ds ?kj okys iSlk nsaxsa rks

geyksx blh ugj ds ikl iSlk ekWxsaxsaA rqe ,d cPPkk dks rS;kj j[kukA og :i;k ysdj vk,xk rFkk rqEgkjs nqdku esa j[k nsxkA rqEgs Hkh fgLlk nsxsaA

eSa jke ukFk jke ds ckr ij jkth gks x;kA mldk fn;k gqvk >ksyk ys fy;k rFkk jkr esa tkdj cM+dk ugj ds ikl lq[knso jke ds

HkqlkSyh esa fNik fn;kA

jkeukFk dk fn;k gqvk >ksyk ,oa diM+k dks lq[knso jke ds HkqlkSyh ls cjken djk nqWZxkA

;g gekjk LohdkjksfDr O;ku gSA eS viuk LohdkjksfDr O;ku dks i fy;k rFkk lgh fy[kk ikdj viuk gLrk{kj cuk fn;kA

g0@& :isâ€​k jke

vfHk;qDr :iâ€k jke dks mlds LohdkjksfDr O;ku nsus ls iwoZ rFkk iâ€pkr vPNh rjg le>k fn;k fd LohdkjksfDRk O;ku lk{; ds :i esa muds fo:} iz;ksx fd;k

tk ldrk gSA g0@&

Confessional Statement of Ajay Kumar @ Shiv S/o Babulal Ram at Ambedkar Colony Baswariya W.N. 31 P.S. Town (Bettiah) recorded by SI

Naresh Kumar SHO Town (Bettiah) PS on 3/4/12 at 18/05 Hrs. in connection with Town (Bettiah) P.S. Case No. 192/12 dt. 1/4/12 U/S 364(A) IPC.

gekjk uke vt; dqekj mQZ fâ€ko mez 22 o’kZ djhc ia0 ckcqyky jke lk0 vEcseSa vkt fnukad 3@4@12 dks le; “kke 6@05 cts can ysnj QSDVªh csy ckx ifjlj esa vki uxj Fkkuk ds iqfyl inkf/kdkjh ds le{k fcuk fdlh Hk;] nckc

izyksHku ds LosPN;kiwoZd

viuk LohdkjksfDr c;ku nsrk gwWa fd

1 ekrk & Lo ehuk nsoh

2 HkkbZ (3) (i) Lo;a

(ii) xqM~Mq dqekj

(iii) lksuw dqekj

(3)cgu & 2 (i) lhek dqekjh vfookfgr

(ii) laxhrk dqekj vfookfgr

(4) iRuh dk uke & iwf.kZek nsoh

(5) larku & nks (i) iq= & ;qxy dqekj

NksVk ckcw

(6) llqjky & dYyq jke lk0 Nkouh puifV;k jksM

Fkkuk euqvk iqyA

(7) fâ€​k{kk & bUVj ikl & 2008

,e0 ts0 ds0 dkWyst

(9) tehu & 10 /kqj ?kjkjh

(10) isâ€​kk & iku nqdku] vEcsdMdj dkWyuh pkSd ij LohdkjksfDr O;ku %&

o’kZ 2008 esa ,e0 ts0 ds0 dkWyst ls baVj ikl djus ds ckn ljdkjh ukSdjh dk dkQh iz;kl fd;k fdUrq ukSdjh ugh gqvkA o’kZ 2009 esa esjk

“kknh gks x;kA ?kj pykus okLrs vius pkSd ij ,d iku nqdku [kksy fn;kA rFkk nqdkunkjh djus yxkA fodkl dqekj gekjk ijkslh Fkk rFkk cjkcj iku nqdku ij

vkdj cSBrk FkkA og Hkh csjkstxkj Fkk rFkk mldk ?kj dk fLFkfr Bhd ugh FkkA fodkl Hkh ljdkjh ukSdjh dk dkQh iz;kl fd;k fdUrq mldk Hkh ukSdjh ugh

yxkA gekjk iwoZt dk xkWo jru ekyk (e>kSfy;k) gSA esjs oMs+ ikik rFkk pkpk yksx ogha jgrs gSA esjs pkpk jke ukFk jke MdSrh dsl esa tsy x;s FksA

rFkk tsy ls NwVus ds ckn gesâ€kk b/kj m/kj jgrs gSA dHkh dHkkj bZaV HkVBk ij etnwjh djrs FksA djhc ,d lky igys tsy ls NwVus ds ckn os tc Hkh

gekjs ikl vkrs FksA tsy esa vanj can vijk/kh ds ckjs esa crkrs FksA rFkk dbZ vijk/kh dk uke ysdj cksyrs Fks fd “kq: esa os dqN ugh FksA vijk/k ls

dkQh iSlk dek fy;s gSA vijk/k esa os lcls vPNk vijk/k vigj.k dk crkrs FksaA esjs pkpk jkeukFk jke dksbZ yM+dk mBokus dks cksyrs FksA gekjs

nqdku ij gekjs ijkslh dk ,d yM+dk lphu mQZ foDdh “kke dks vkrk FkkA rFkk leku [kjhnrk FkkA mlds vkus tkus ls gels mldk tku igpku gks x;kA

rFkk ekywe pyk fd mldk viuk ?kj ukSru esa gSa og ofyLVj izlkn ds ?kj ij fdjk;k esa jgrk gSA gekjs pkpk ds nckc ls eSa rFkk fodkl ;g fu.kZ; fy, fd blh

yM+dk dks mBk dj pkpk dk ns nsaxsaA rFkk vklkuh ls :i;k olwy ldrs gSaA vkt ls 20 fnu igys geyksx nqxkZ ckx eafnj 1½ cts fnu esa igqapsA geyksx

lphu mQZ foDdh ls igys gh iwNdj tku x;s Fks fd og Nkouh ifoDdh mrjk rks fodkl mlds ikl pyk x;k rFkk ckrphr djus yxkA genksuks lphu mQZ foDdh dks ?kwekus ds cgkus mls vius lkFk ys fy;sA lphu dks cksys

fd viuk Ldwy csx pk; ukLrk ds nqdku ij j[k nksA lphu ogkW ds pk; ukLrk nqdku ij Ldwy csx j[k fn;kA rFkk geyksx mls ysdj jru ekyk pys vk;s rFkk

vius pkpk jke ukFk jke dks lkSi fn;kA pkpk lphu dks [ksr ?kwekus ugj ys vk;s rFkk pkpk enu jke ds >ksiM+h esa ys vk,A ml oDr enu jke [ksr esa dke

dj jgs FksA nksuks pkpk vkil esa ckrphr fd;sA rFkk lphu mQZ foDdh dks iVd dj gkFk iSj eqWg ckW/k fn;sA pkpk jke ukFk cksys fd ,d nks jkst

ns[krsa gS fQj :i;k ekWxsaxsaA geyksx ogkW ls vius vius ?kj pys vk, rFkk nks fnu ckn fQj jru ekyk x;s rFkk enu pkpk ds >ksiM+h x;sA ml oDr dsoy

jke ukFk jke FksA rFkk lphu mQZ foDdh dks gkFk iSj eqWg ckW/k dj >ksiM+h esa j[ks FksA fodkl lphu mQZ foDdh dk gkFk iSj [kksy dj le>kus yxk

rFkk dg jgk Fkk fd mls tYnh ?kj igWqpk nsaxsaA blh chp lphu iS[kkuk djus ds cgkus >ksiM+h ls fudyk rFkk Hkkxus yxkA rFkk fpYykus yxkA

fpYykus dh vkokt lqudj esjs pkpk jke ukFk jke nkSM+dj vk, RkFkk lphu mQZ foDdh dks mBkdj iVd fn;sA lphu tksj&tksj ls fpYyk jgk Fkk rFkk jks jgk

FkkA pkpk gesa xkyh nsdj cqyk;s rFkk gkFk iSj idM+us dks cksysA geyksx gkFk iSj idM+ fy;s ysfdu lphu jksuk can ugh dj jgk FkkA jke ukFk jke

mlds Nkrh ij pksiM+h esa j[k fn;sA djhc ,d

?kaVk ds ckn pkpk enu jke vk;sA tc ;g ckr lqus dh geyksx lphu dks ekj fn;s gS rks dkQh MkWVsaA cksys fd jkr esa bldks nQuk nksA jkr cts ge

lHkh lphu dk ykâ€k ysdj mrj fnâ€kk ugj ds ikl vk;s rFkk tehu [kksndj mldks nQuk fn;sA nQukus ls igys pkpk jkeukFk lphu dk LosVj ] lVZ] iSaV

[kksydj fudky fy, rFkk >ksiMh esa vk,A >ksiMh esa mldk twrk j[kk FkkA twrk LosVj lVZ iSaV >ksyk esa j[k fn;sA rFkk lqcg 4@00 cts vius lkFk

ysdj pys x,A geyksx Hkh lqcg csfr;k pys vk,A rhu pkj fnu ds ckn jke ukFk jke clofj;k vk,A rFkk lfpu ds ckjs esa iwNsA lphu ds ?kj okys vHkh Hkh

mls xqe gksus dh ckr le> jgs FksA pkpk jke ukFk jke gesa ckys fd tkyh lhe dk O;oLFkk djksaA ml uEcj ls lphu ds ?kj ij Qksu djds :i;k ekWxsaxsa rFkk

foâ€okl djus okLrs mldk diM+k twrk nsdj :i;k ys ysaxsaA blds okn jkeukFk jke pys x,A vkt ls N% ekg igys fodkl dks ,d oksVj vkb0 Mh0 lM+d ij feyk

FkkA fodkl gedks vkbZ+ Mh+ fn[kk;k FkkA eSa fodkl dks og ID ykus dks dgkA fodkl vius ?kj x;k rFkk ID yk;kA og ID y{e.k jke firk eksrhpu jke

rkSykgk jkeuxj dk FkkA geyksx ds ikl leL;k Fkk fd y{e.k jke dk QksVks dgkW ls yk;sA rHkh eq>s ;kn vk;k fd lrhâ€k uked ,d yM+dk esjs ;gkW

xqVdk cspus vkrk gSA og ifjp; i= cukus dk ckr cksyk FkkA eSa y{e.k dk dkMZ vius ikl j[k fy;kA nks fnu ckn lrhâ€k lkbZfdy ls iku eâ€kkyk xqVdk

cspus vk;k rks eSa ifjp; i= rFkk QksVks O;oLFkk djus dks cksyk rks lrhâ€k gels y{e.k jke dk ifjp; i= ys fy;k rFkk ,d gtkj :i;k ekWxkA eSa lrhâ€k dks

,d gtkj :i;k ns fn;kA rhu fnu ds ckn lrhâ€k ,d ifjp; i= dk Nk;k izfr rFkk ,d QksVks ykdj fn;k eSa ifjp; i= dk Nk;k izfr ns[kk rks nax jg x;kA vksfjtu

QksVks ds LFkku ij og tks QksVks fn;k Fkk og yxk Fkk A lrhâ€k ds firk dk uke rFkk irk ugh ekywe gSA vkt ls 14@15 fnu igys eSa rFkk fodkl

Nkouh x;s rFkk ,d lhe cspus okys ds ;gkW x, rFkk lhe IDEA dk ekWxsaA lhe cspus okyk ID Proof rFkk QksVks ekWxkA fodkl ifjp; i= dk Nk;k izfr

rFkk QksVks nsdj lhe ys fy;kA rFkk lhe dk :i;k ns fn;kA lhe ysdj ge nksuks jruekyk x;s rFkk pkpk jke ukFk jke dks lhe izkIr gksus dk ckr crk;sA jke

ukFk jke lfpu ds ?kj dk eksckbZy uEcj ekWxsA gekjs ikl lphu ds ?kj dk uEcj ugh Fkk rks cksys fdlh rjg O;oLFkk djksA eSa rFkk fodkl lphu ds ?kj dk

uEcj irk djus dk dkQh iz;kl fd;s] fdUrq Mj Hkh yx jgk FkkA rhu pkj fnu ds ckn jke ukFk pkpk clojh;k vk, rFkk uEcj ekWxsA geyksx crk;s fd uEcj dk

O;oLFkk ugh gqvk gSA vr% eSa lksp le>dj geyksx ;kstuk cuk;s fd ,d iksLVj ij uEcj eSlst fy[kdj mlds ?kj ds fnoky ij lkV nsaxsaA osyksx gels lEidZ

djsaxsa rks :i;k ekWxsaxsaA fodkl ,d lknk dkxt ij rcjst usiky ij cfyLVj iz0 ds uke ls iksLVj cuk;k fd tks fdjk;knkj dk cPpk 12@3@12 ls xk;c gS og gekjs

dCts esa gSaA rFkk tYn lEidZ djks rFkk lcls uhps tkyh ifjp; i= vkSj QksVks vk/kkj ij Nkouh ls [kjhnk x;k IDEA dk uEcj fy[k fn;sA rFkk mlds ?kj ds

nhoky ij jkr esa lkV dj pys vk,A nks rhu fnu ds ckn pkpk jke ukFk jke clojh;k vk, rks geyksx v[kckj dk dfVax fn[kk;sA jkeukFk jke dfaVax dks vius ikl

j[k fy;sA blds ckn pkpk jru ekyk ugh tkdj gekjs ;gkW Bgj x;sA ml eksckbZy Qksu ij lphu ds ?kj okyksa dk Qksu vk;kA ysfdu geyksx ckr ugh fd;sA

rFkk vxys fnu Qksu dj nks yk[k :i;k ekWxsa rks lfpu ds ?kj okys fxM+fxM+kusa yxsA geyksx Qksu dkV fn;sA vkt ge rhuksa csyckx ds can ysnj

QSDVªh esa cSBdj Qksu djus ds fy, lksp gh jgs Fks vkiyksx vkdj ge rhuksa dks idM+ fy;sA :i;k ekWxus okyk lhe cjken gks x;kA gekjs ikl lp cksyus

ds flok dksbZ pkjk ugh FkkA ge vkidks lp lp lkjh ckr crk fn;sA pydj tgkW lphu mQZ foDdh dh ykâ€​k gS og txg fn[kk

nsaxsaA rFkk ykâ€​k cjken djk nsaA

;gh gekjk LohdjksfDr O;ku gSA eSa viuk LohdkjksfDr O;ku i fy;k rFkk lgh fy[kk ikdj viuk gLrk{kj cuk fn;kA g0%& vt;

dqekj mQZ fâ€​ko

vfHk;qDr vt; dqekj mQZ fâ€ko dks mlds LohdkjksfDr O;ku ntZ djus ls iwoZ rFkk iâ€pkr vPNh rjg le>k fn;k gWw fd mudk LohdkjksfDr O;ku lk{; ds

:i esa muds fo:} iz;ksx fd;k tk ldrk gSA g0@&

Confessional Statement of Vikash Kumar age about 22 yrs S/o Laxman Ram at Ambedkar Colony W.N. 31 P.S. Town (Bettiah) recorded by SI

Naresh Kumar SHO Town (Bettiah) PS at Belbag Leather Factory on 3/4/12 at 18/45 Hrs. in connection with Town (Bettiah) P.S. Case No. 192/12

dt. 1/4/12 U/S 364(A) IPC.

gekjk uke fodkl dqekj mez 22 o’kZ djhc is0 y{e.k jke lk0 vEcsndj dkWyuh okMZ u0 31 Fkkuk uxj csfr;k ft0 i0 pEikj.k gSA eSa vkt fnukad

3@4@12 dks le; “kke 6@45 cts can ysnj QSDVªh ds ifjlj esa vki uxj Fkkuk ds iqfyl inkf/kdkjh ds le{k fouk fdlh Hk;] izyksHku ,oa nckc ds

LosPN;k iwoZd viuk

LohdkjksfDr O;ku nsrk gWw fd %&

(1) ekrk dk uke %& fo/kk nsoh

(2) HkkbZ & (5) (1) cM+k Lo;a

(2) lqâ€​khy dqekj

(3) euksgj dqekj

(4) lanhi dqekj

(5) foDdh dqekj

(3) cgu & ccyh dqekjh

(4) cSokfgd fLFkfr & vfookghr

(5) fâ€​k{kk %& eSfVªd ikl & 2008 esa cxgk pkSrjok vkoklh; fo/kky;

(6) uSfugky %& ukuk Lo0 fâ€​ko/kj jke veok e>kj Fkkuk eqQQfly i0 pEikj.kA LohdkjksfDr O;ku %&

eSfVªd ikl djus ds ckn eSa vkehZ esa cgkyh ds fy, nkSM+ fudkyk FkkA ysfdu ukSdjh ugh yxkA rFkk blh o’kZ bUVj dk ijh{kk fn;k gWwA esjs

ijkslh vt; dqekj mQZ fâ€ko dk iku dk nqdku gSA eSa vdlj mlds iku ds nqdku ij tkdj cSBrk FkkA iku ds nqdku ij fâ€k{kd uxj ds osfjLVj iz0 ds fdjk;snkj

dk yM+dk lphu mQZ foDdh vkrk FkkA eSa foDdh ls vdlj ckr djrk FkkA vt; mQZ fâ€ko dk pkpk jke ukFk jke vijk/kh fdLe ds vkneh gSa os MdSrh ds

dkj.k tsy x, gSaA tsy ls NqVus ds ckn vDlj vt; dqekj mQZ fâ€ko ds ;gkW vkrs FksA rFkk vt; gedks :i;k dk ykyp nsdj ,d yM+dk dk vigj.k djokus dks

dgrs FksA muds >kWls esa eSa rFkk vt; vk x;s rFkk lksps fd lphu dks mBkdj nsxsaA :i;k fey tk,xkA lphu ls ckrphr ds Øe esa ge irk dj fy, fd og

Nkouh idjus yxsaA djhc 1½ cts lphu Ldwy cl ls vk;kA lphu eS:u jax dk gkWQ LosVj rFkk Ldwy Mzsl igus FkkA cl ls mrjrs gh eSa lphu ls ckr djus yxk rFkk

?kweus pyus dks dgkA lphu rS;kj gks x;kA eSa Ldwy cSx dks ,d pk; ukLrk nqdku esa j[kus dks cksykA lphu ogkW ds pk; ukLrk nqdku ij viuk Ldwy

cSx j[k dj pyk vk;kA ge lphu mQZ foDdh dks ysdj vt; ds pkpk jke ukFk jke ds xkWo jru ekyk x;s rFkk jke ukFk jke dks crk;s fd yM+dk ysdj vk, gSA

jke ukFk jke ?kwekus ds cgkus ugj gskrs gh viuk cM+k HkkbZ enu jke ds >ksiM+h ds ikl ys x;k jkeukFk jke vius HkkbZ enu jke dks lc ckr crk;k rks

jkeukFk jke rFkk enu jke us feydj >ksiM+h esa lphu dks iVdj dj gkFk iSj eqWg ckW/k fn;s rFkk geyksx okil csfr;k pys vk,A nks fnu ds ckn genksuksa

jruekyk x;s rFkk >ksiM+h esa gkFk iSj ckW/k lphu dks ns[ks eSa lphu dk gkFk iSj [kksydj ckr djus yxk lphu iS[kkuk dk cgkuk cukdj Hkkxus yxk rFkk

fpYykus yxkA jke ukFk jke nkSM+dj lphu dks idM+ fy;kA rFkk geyksx dks cqyk dj gkFk iSj idM+k;kA ysfdu lfpu tksj tksj ls fpYyk jgk FkkA xqLlk

esa vkdj jke ukFk jke lphu ds mij pjke rFkk enu jke us feydj lphu mQZ foDdh dk lVZ iSaV LosVj mrkj dj nQuk fn;kA diM+k LosVj twrk dks jke ukFk jke vius ikl j[k fy;kA lqcg 4@00

cts eSa rFkk vt; okil osfr;k vk x;sA rhu pkj fnu ds ckn jkeukFk jke clojh;k vk;sA rFkk cksys fd diM+k fn[kk dj :i;k ,saBsaxsaA ,d lhe dk O;oLFkk

djksA

vt; dks ekywe Fkk fd eq>s ,d rkSykgk ds vkneh dk ifjp; i= jksM ij feyk FkkA mlus dEI;wVj ds }kjk fdlh vkneh ls QksVks cnyok dj QksVks rFkk ifjp;

i= dk QksVks dkWih eWxok;k ftldks ysdj eSa rFkk vt; Nkouh tkdj ,d nqdkunkj ls vkbfM;k dEiuh dk lhe ys fy;sA rFkk jruk ekyk tkdj jke ukFk jke dks

crk;s fd lhe dk O;oLFkk gks x;kA lphu dk ?kj dk Qksu uEcj ugh fey ikus ij ge fu.kZ; fy;s fd ,d iksLVj ij eksckbZy u0 fyf[kr lphu ds ?kj ds fnoky ij lkV

nsaxsaA rFkk tc os Qksu djsxk rks ge :i;k ekWxsaxsaA

pkj ikWp fnu igys eSa lknk dkxt ij rcjst usiky ds uke ls ,d iksLVj cuk;s rFkk mlij fy[kk fd 12@3@12 dks tks cPpk xk;c gS gekjs dCtk esa gS A lEidZ

djks A rFkk uhps IDEA okyk uEcj fy[k fn;sA

vxys fnu v[kokj esa Hkh NikA lkjs rjQ ppkZ gksus yxk fd lphu dk fdMuSi gks x;k gSA jke ukFk jke vk;s rks v[kckj dk dVhax fn[kk;k ftls os vius ikl j[k

fy;sA blds ckn rhu ckj geyksx dk lphu ds ?kj okyk ls ckrphr gqvkA geyksx nks yk[k :i;k lphu dks NksM+us ds uke ij ekWxsaA vkt eSa] vt; mQZ

fâ€ko rFkk jke ukFk jke can ysnj QSDVªh esa cSB dj lphu ds ?kj okys dks Qksu dj jgs Fks fd vki yksx vkdj geyksx dks idM+ fy;sA rFkk geyksx ls

ikl lhe Hkh cjken gks x;kA

vki ge ij Hkjkslk fdth, eq>s jru ekyk ysdj pyh,A geyksx lphu ds ykâ€k dks ugj ds nf{k.k fdukjs esa nQuk, gSA og LFkku Hkh fn[kk nsaxsaA rFkk lphu

dk ykâ€​k dks cjken djk nwWxkA

;gh gekjk LohdkjksfDr O;ku gS A eSa viuk LohdkjksfDr O;ku dks i fy;k rFkk lgh fy[kk ikdj viuk gLrk{kj cuk fn;kA g0@&

vfHk;qDr fodkl dqekj dks mlds LohdkjksfDr O;ku ntZ djus ls iwoZ ,oa iâ€pkr vPNh rjg le>k fn;k x;k gSA mldk LohdkjksfDr O;ku lk{; ds :i esa muds

fo:} iz;ksx fd;k tk ldrk gSaA g0@&

Confessional Statement of Ram nath Ram aged 30 yrs S/o Late Dhunmun Ram at vill Ratanmala PS Majhouliya Dist W. Champaran recorded by SI

Naresh Kumar SHO Town (Bettiah) PS at Belbag Close Leather Factory Campus on 3/4/12 at 17/20 Hrs. in connection with Town (Bettiah) P.S.

Case No. 192/12 dt. 1/4/12 U/S 364(A) IPC.

gekjk uke jke ukFk jke mez djhc 30 o’kZ is0 Lo0 kSfy;k ft0 i0 pEikj.k gSA eSa vkt fnukad 3@4@12 dks

“kke 5%20 cts vki uxj Fkkuk ds iqfyl inkf/kdkjh ds le{k fcuk fdlh Hk;] izyksHku] ,oa nckc ds LosPNkiwoZd viuk LohdkjksfDr O;ku nsrk gWw fd

%&

(1) ekrk dk uke %& Lo0 Qqyefr nsoh

(2) HkkbZ & (6) (1) pfUnzdk jke

(2) ckcq yky jke

(3) >kcq yky jke

(4) enu jke

(5) eksrh jke

(6) Lo;a

(3) cgu & (2) (1) u;u nsoh ifr yky cgknqj jke lk0 “kuhpjh dksBh Fkkuk “kuhpjh ft0 i0 pEikj.k

(2) “kksHkk nsoh

ifr jktsâ€​oj jke lk0 ?kqeuxj] Fkkuk ukSru ft0 i0 pEikj.k (4) iRuh dk uke %& izHkkorh nsoh

(5) larku & nks iq=h (1) okWoh dqekjh (2) uUgdh dqekjh iq= ,d %& fnyhi dqekj

(6) llqjky %& Lolqj foUnsâ€​ojh jke xzke cgqvjok

Fkkuk lqxkSyh iwohZ pEikj.kA

(7) tehu tk;nkn %& jruekyk esa 3 dVBk [ksrh dk tehuA LohdkjksfDr O;ku %&

rhu pkj o’kZ igys esjs firk dh e`R;q gks xbZA muds ftfor jgrs esaS vius tehu ij [ksrh etnwjh rFkk bZV HkVBk ij ukSdjh dj viuk rFkk vius ifjokj dk

thou clj djrk FkkA esjs xkWo dk jkepUnz gtjk pksjh MdSrh djrk FkkA HkVBh esa nk: ihus ds le; tku igpku rFkk nksLrh gks x;hA eSa vkt ls nks

o’kZ igys tSuh Vksyk esa jkepanz gtjk] thrsUnz jke] fou; ikloku] tax ogknqj egrks mQZ taxk] fotyh egrks vuhy egrks] eqfDr jke ds lkFk MdSrh

Mkys FksA ml dsâ€k esa iqfyl gedks idM+ dj tsy Hkst fn;kA ,d o’kZ ds ckn tekur ij tsy ls NqVk rFkk xkWo esa vkdj vius ?kj jgus yxkA tsy ls

fudyus ds ckn eSa dksVok ds Hkq’k.k flag ds bZV HkVBk ij dke djus yxkA fltuy dke gksus ds dkj.k esjk isV ugh Hkjrk FkkA tc eSa tsy esa Fkk

rks dSnh vkil esa vigj.k ls gq, dekbZ dk ppkZ djrs FksA muds ckr ckrphr ls eq>s ekywe pyk fd ,d ckj vigj.k dj fy;k tk, rks vkjke ls 10@20 yk[k

:i;k fey ldrk gS A eSa tc Hkh lksus tkrk Fkk rks gesâ€kk vigj.k ls dekbZ ds ckjs esa lksprk Fkk fd vxj vigj.k ls 10 yk[k Hkh fey tk, rks esjk lkjk nq[k

[kRe gks tk,xkA esjs cM+s HkkbZ csfr;k esa jgrs FksA eSa vDlj clofj;k vius HkkbZ ckcw yky jke ds ;gkW tkrk FkkA rFkk viuk cM+k Hkfrtk vt;

dqekj jke mQZ fâ€kcq RkFkk mlds nksLr fodkl dqekj ls ckrphr djrk FkkA ckrphr ls ekywe pyk fd fodkl dqekj jke Hkh csjsktxkj yM+dk gS rFkk mlds ?

kj dk Hkh fLFkfr Bhd ugh gSA eSa fodkl ls cksyk fd fdlh yM+dk dks mBok nksA 10@15 yk[k :i;k feysxkA ge rhuksa dk nq%[k ftUnxh Hkj ds fy,

[kRe gks tk,xkA fodkl cksyk fd Bhd gS ns[krsa gSaA

vkt ls 20@25 fnu igys esSa clofj;k vk;k rFkk fodkl ls cksyk fd dksbZ yM+dk irk yxk gS ftldksa vklkuh ls mBk dj ys pys bl ij fodkl cksyk vHkh rd irk

ugh yxk gSA geyksx bl ij /;ku ns jgsa gSa A rHkh vt; dqekj mQZ fâ€kcq fodkl dks cksyk fd cfyLVj izlkn ds edku esa jgus okyk foDdh dSlk jgsxkA

mlds firk Hkh ;gkW ugh jgrsa gSaA rFkk pkSd ij Hkh vkrk tkrk gSA rFkk rqels vPNk tku igpku gSA bl ij fodkl rFkk vt; cksys fd vki tkb, ,d yM+dk dks

ge tYn ysdj vkids ikl vk jgsa gSaA vkt ls djhc 20 fnu igys fnu eaxyokj dks vt; dqekj jke mQZ fâ€​ko RkFkk fodkl dqekj ,d yM+dk tks Ldwy

Mªsl rFkk yky jax dk LosVj igus Fkk ysdj vk;k rFkk ml oDr esjs ?kj ds lkeus lM+d ij FkkA cPpk dks ?kqekus dk ogkuk dj jru ekyk ugj ys vk;s rFkk

vius HkkbZ enu jke ds >ksiM+h ds ikl ys vk,A ml oDr enu jke vius [ksr esa dke dj jgs FksA eSa vius cM+s HkkbZ dks yM+dk rFkk iSlk feyus ds ckr

crk;kA FkksM+k nsj ckn esjs HkkbZ enu jke rFkk eSa >ksiM+h esa ys tkdj yM+dk dks iVd fn;s rFkk gkFk eqWg ckW/k fn;k rFkk vt; rFkk fodkl dks

le>k;k fd ,d nks jkst ns[krsa gSa fd foDdh ds ?kj okys D;k djrs gSa rFkk iqfyl dks lwpuk nsrsa gSa fd ughA

vt; rFkk fodkl ogkW ls pys x;s A rFkk nks fnu ds vt; RkFkk fodkl fQj gekjs xkWo vk;sA ml oDr Hkh yM+dk foDdh dqekj dks >ksiM+h esa ckW/k dj

j[ks FksA fodkl ml yM+dk ds ikl vk;k rFkk mldk gkFk iSj eqWg [kksydj ckrphr djus yxkA vpkud foDdh dqekj >ksiM+h ls fudy dj ckgj Hkkxus yxk

rFkk fpYykus yxkA mlds fpYykus ls eSa Mj x;k fd dgh xkWo ds dksbZ yksx mls ns[k u ys eSa nkSM+ dj >ksiM+h ds ckgj [kM+ ds ikl mls iVd fn;kA

ysfdu og yM+dk tksj&tksj ls fpYyk jgk FkkA eSa xkyh nsrs vt; rFkk fodkl dks cqyk;k rFkk mldk gkFk iSj idM+us dks dgkA vt; rFkk fodkl vkdj foDdh

dk gkFk iSj idM+ fy;s] fdUrq og yM+dk fpYykrs jgkA eSa mldk eqWg nkc dj pqi djkus dk iz;kl fd;k tc og pqi ugh gqvk rks eSa nksuks iSj mlds Nkrh ij

j[k dj xyk nck dj gR;k dj fn;kA rFkk mldk ykâ€k mBkdj vius HkkbZ enu jke ds >ksiM+h esa fNik fn;kA ,d ?kaVk ds ckn enu jke vk;s rks lkjh ckr

crk;sA geyksx dks dkQh MkWVs rFkk cksys fd bldks nQuk nsxsaA

jkr 12 cts eSa] fodkl ] vt; mQZ fâ€​ko] rFkk enu jke dqnky rFkk foDdh dk ykâ€​k ysdj ugj ds fdukjs vk;sA rFkk mldk lVZ] “osVj] Qqy iSaV fudky dj

tehu [kksn dj mlesa nQuk fn;sA rFkk foDdh dk LosVj lVZ iSaV ysdj >ksiM+h esa vk x;sA eSa >ksiM+h esa j[kk foDdh dk twrk dks >ksyk esa j[k

fn;kA jkr Hkj eSa ] vt; ] fodkl rFkk enu HkS;k >ksiM+h esa gh jgsA lqcg 4@00 cts eSa foDdh dk diM+k twrk >ksyk esa ysdj ?kj vk;k rFkk vius

>ksiM+h ds ihNs >kMh esa fNik fn;kA rFkk vt; fodkl csfr;k pys x;sA rhu pkj fnu ds ckn eSa clofj;k vk;k rFkk vt;] fodkl ls HksV fd;kA vt; fodkl ls

foDdh ds ?kj okys ds ckjs esa tkudkjh fy;k rks os cksys fd dksbZ ckr ugh irk pyk gSA mlds ?kj okys dks vHkh Hkh foâ€okl gS fd og xqe gks x;k gSA

eSa vt; rFkk fodkl dks le>k;k fd fpark er djksaA ,d tkyh lhe dk O;oLFkk djska mlls mlds ?kj ij Qksu djds cksysaxsa fd mudk yM+dk vHkh gekjs dCtk

esa gSaA rFkk :i;k dk ekWx djsxsaA foâ€​okl fnykus ds fy, ge mldk diM+k Hkstok nsaxsaA rFkk tc :i;k fey tk,xk rks lhe rksM+ dj Qsad nsaxsaA

eSa vxys fnu vius ?kj pyk x;k rFkk foDdh dk diM+k twrk >ksyk esa ysdj ?kweuxj vk;k rFkk esjk iwoZ tku igpku ds :isâ€k jke dks ?kVuk rFkk ;kstuk

ds ckjs esa crk;k rFkk cksyk fd tc lsfVax gks tk,xk rks foDdh dk diM+k j[k nsuk rkfd mlds ?kj okys diM+k ns[kdj foâ€okl dj ys vkSj gesa :i;k ns nA

:isâ€k jke >ksyk esa j[kk diM+k twrk ysdj pyk x;k rFkk dgha fNik fn;kA eSa ogkW ls vius ?kj pyk vk;kA rFkk 10@11 fnu igys eSa jru ekyk vius ?kj ij

Fkk fd vt; vkSj fodkl vk, rFkk cksys fd lhe dk O;oLFkk gks x;k gSA lhe O;oLFkk dh ckr lqudj eSa [kqâ€kh ls mNy x;kA rFkk eq>s foâ€okl gks jgk

Fkk fd vc gesa :i;k t:j feysxkA eSa foDdh ds ?kj dk uEcj ekWxk rks vt; vkSj fodkl cksys fd uEcj rks ugh ekywe gSA eSa nksuks dks uEcj O;oLFkk

djus dks dgkA rhu pkj fnu ds ckn tc fodkl vkSj vt; dksbZ [kcj ugh fd;s rks eSa clofj;k x;k rFkk vt; ,oa fodkl ls feyk rFkk foDdh ds ?kj ds eksckbZy uEcj

ds ckjs esa iwNk rks cksys fd irk ugh py jgk gSaA eSa [kh> dj cksyk fd vxj Qksu uEcj ugh feysxk rks :i;k dSls feysxkA bl ij fodkl cksyk fd ,slk djrs gS

fd ,d dkxt ij Qksu u0 rFkk vigj.k djus dh ckr fy[kdj jkr esa mlds ?kj ij lkV nsaxsaA og ospSu gSA t:j Qksu djsxsaA iqfyl dks uEcj Hkh irk pysxk rks jke

uxj cxgk [kkstus tk,xh rc rd ge yksx :i;k Vku ysaxsaA fodkl dk rjhdk gedks ilan vk;k rFkk eSa ,slk djus dks rqjar dgkA eSa nks rhu fnu ds ckn clofj;k

vk;k fodkl ,d lknk dkxt ij fy[k dj j[kk FkkA jkr 12@00 cts ge rhuks pqids ls foDdh ds ?kj ij x;s rFkk QsohdkWy ls mlds fnoky ij lkV dj pys vk;sA rhu

fnu igys clofj;k x;k rks fodkl v[kckj dk dfVax fn;k rFkk cksyk fd geyksx tks iksLVj lkVs gSaA mlds ckjs esa [kcj Nik gSA Fkkuk izHkkjh cksyk gS fd

gedks ekywe ugh gSA eSa dkQh [kqâ€k gks jgk Fkk D;ksfd fcuk >a>V geyksx dk dke lQy gks jgk FkkA eS ?kj ugh x;k rFkk vt; ds ;gkW jgus yxkA

vxys fnu eSa vt; rFkk fodkl dks lhe yxkus dks cksyk nksuks vius vius eksckbZy esa IDEA dk lhe yxk;sA FkksM+k nsj ds ckn ,d fjax gqvk fodkl Qksu

mBk;k rFkk Qksu lquk rFkk dkV fn;kA cksyk fd foDdh ds ?kj okyksa dk Qksu gSA foDdh ds ckjs esa iwN jgs FksA vxys fnu jkr esa fodkl ml uEcj ij

Qksu djds 2 yk[k :i;k ekWxk rFkk Qksu dkV fn;kA vkt geyksx can ysnj QSDVzh esa cSBdj fQj Qksu djus dh ;kstuk cuk jgs Fks fd vki yksx vkdj gesa

idM+ fy;sA rFkk rykâ€kh ds dze esa fodkl ds ikl ls lhe fey x;k vki cPps ds ckjs esa ckj ckj iwN jgs FksA ge cPpk dgkW ls ykrsA geyksx ds ikl ls

cjken lhe] v[kckj dk dfVax eksckbZy Qksu >wB dks fNik ugh ldrk gSA blds fy, lp lp ckr crk fn;s rFkk pydj foDdh dk ykâ€k tgkW nQuk, gSA fn[kk

nsxsa rFkk ykâ€​k dks cjken djk nsxsaA ;gh gekjk LohdkjksfDr O;ku gSA ftls ig0@&

vfHk;qDr jke ukFk jke dks mlds LohdkjksfDr O;ku nsus ls iwoZ rFkk nsus ds iâ€pkr vPNh rjg le>k fn;k gwW fd mudk LohdkjksfDr O;ku dks lk{; ds

:i esa muds fo:} iz;ksx fd;k tk ldrk gSA

g0@&â€​

On examination of aforesaid confessional statement, it is evident that most of the accused persons were related with each other except Rupesh

Ram (appellant in Cr.Appeal DB No. 761 of 2014). On their confession, dead body of Sachin @ Vicky aged about 11 years was recovered, which

was concealed and buried under 4 feet of the land and clothes/uniform of the deceased was recovered. Accordingly, their confession in the facts and

circumstances of the present case may not be ignored, since this confession is an exception to provision contained in Section 25 and 26 of the

Evidence Act and it is admissible in view of Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

Ofcourse, at the time of hearing, Sri AkhileshwarPrasad Singh, learned senior counsel had placed reliance on two judgments of the Supreme Court

i.e. Aghnoo Nagesia’s case (supra) and Kashmira Singh’s case (supra). So far as Agnoo Nagesia’s case (supra) is concerned, on

examining the aforesaid judgment, we are of the opinion that said judgment has got no application, in view of facts and circumstances of the present

case. In the said case, the appellant, after killing about 4-5 of his family member, himself went to the police station and disclosed the fact and on his

statement, First Information Report was recorded. However, since the said fardbeyan was recorded before the arrest of the appellant i.e. Agnoo

Nagesia, it was not treated as confession. It is made clear that confessional statement leading to recovery is to be relied upon only in a case, in which,

confession is recorded after the arrest of the accused. Section 27 of the Evidence Act comes into play only if confession of an accused is recorded

after his arrest. It would be relevant to refer to judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case reported in AIR 1994 SUPREME COURT

2420 (Suresh Chandra Bahri vs. State of Bihar). In paragraph 71 of the said judgment, it has been indicated that:

“The two essential requirements for the application of Section 27 of the Evidence Act are that: (1) the person giving information must be an

accused of an offence, and (2) he must also be in police custody.â€​

Even paragraph 21 of Aghnoo Nagesia’s case (supra), on which reliance has been placed, this itself depicts that said judgment has got no

application. It would be necessary to incorporate paragraph 21 of the said judgment, which is as follows:-

“21. Section 27 applies only to information received from a person accused of an offence in the custody of a police officer. Now, the Sub

Inspector stated he arrested the appellant after he gave the first information report leading to the discovery. Prima facie, therefore, the appellant was

not in the custody of a police officer when he gave the report, unless it can be said that he was then in constructive custody. On the question whether

a person directly giving to police officer information which may be used as evidence against him may be deemed to have submitted himself to the

custody of the police officer within the meaning of S. 27, there is conflict of opinion. See the observations of Shah, J. and Subba Rao, J. in (1961) 1

SCR 14: (AIR 1960 SC 1125). For the purposes of the case, we shall assume that the appellant was constructively in police custody and therefore the

information contained in the first information report leading to the discovery of the dead bodies and the tangi is admissible in evidence. The entire

evidence against the appellant then consists of the fact that the appellant gave information as to the place where the dead bodies were lying and as to

the place where he concealed the tangi, the discovery of the dead bodies and the tangi in consequence of the information, the discovery of a blood-

stained chadar from the appellant's house and the fact that he had gone to Dungi Jharan Hills on the morning of August 11, 1963. This evidence is not

sufficient to convict the appellant of the offenses under S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code.â€​

So far as Kashmira Singh’s case (supra) is concerned, the fact and the circumstance of the said case are not in consonance with the present

case. The present case is not only based on confessional statement of accused, rather entire circumstances indicate regarding involvement of the

appellants. So far as submission of learned senior counsel in respect of accused Ajay Kumar @ Shiv (appellant in Cr.Appeal DB No. 743 of 2014) is

concerned, this appellant was arrested alongwith two other accused persons in a lonely and deserted leather factory. It is case of the prosecution that

the investigating officer had got tips from the informer that the accused, who were seen with the deceased 20-22 days back had assembled in the

leather factory. Thereafter, raiding party proceeded and after seeing the raiding party, all the three accused who had gathered there, started fleeing

away, however; they were apprehended and from their possession, incriminating documents and SIM containing the number incorporated in the poster

relating to ransom or kidnapping were recovered. The arrest of the appellant Ajay with other accused, having such incriminating articles, was itself

sufficient to draw an inference that all the three had conspired together and with others after their arrest their confessional statement was recorded

and in their confession, they disclosed the fact leading to recovery of dead body and clothes of the deceased boy. The admissibility of confessional

statement before the police after being arrested was again considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case reported in (2001) 3 Supreme

Court Cases 190 {(SANJAY ALIAS KAKA vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)}. It would be appropriate to quote paragraph 17 of the said judgment,

which is as follows:-

“17. Section 25 mandates that no confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of an offence. Similarly Section

26 provides that confession by the accused person while in custody of police cannot be proved against him. However, to the aforesaid rule of Section

25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, there is an exception carved out by Section 27 providing that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in

consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it

amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved. Section 27 is a proviso to Sections 25 and 26. Such

statements are generally termed as disclosure statements leading to the discovery of facts which are presumably in the exclusive knowledge of the

maker. Section 27 appears to be based on the view that if a fact is actually discovered in consequence of information given, some guarantee is

afforded thereby that the information was true and accordingly it can be safely allowed to be given in evidence.â€​

It is true that Sri Thakur, learned counsel for theappellants in remaining appeals has taken the plea that in the case, confession of only one accused

was required to be taken, not all, and that too against the maker of such confession. He submits that after arrest of three accused persons, the police

firstly recorded confessional statement of accused Ram Nath Ram (since died), his confession was recorded on 17.20 hrs (5:20 PM) and only

thereafter, confessional statement of other accused was recorded. He submits that once the police had got an information, which was within the

knowledge of the accused, leading to recovery of dead body and clothes, the police would have immediately acted upon on the basis of such

confession and recovery would have been affected. Once the police had received such information first, the confession which were earlier recorded

i.e. confession of Ram Nath Ram was required to be applied only against Ram Nath Ram (since died) and not others. The Court is of the opinion that

ofcourse such submission appears to be attractive, but same is required to be rejected out rightly. The reason is that on a proper information that

accused persons involved in the kidnapping of the boy had assembled in a lonely and closed leather factory and thereafter, police proceeded to the

leather factory, however after noticing the police, all the three started fleeing away. The conduct of fleeing away of the accused was indicative of the

fact that some offence they had committed. Immediately thereafter, they were apprehended and after their personal search, materials connected with

the kidnapping of the boy were recovered from possession of the accused persons and thereafter, confessional statement was recorded. In such

situation, conduct of accused persons was itself indicative of the fact that all the accused had conspired together to commit the crime and they all

were involved. On the basis of confessional statement i.e. disclosure statement led to recovery of dead body, cloths and other circumstances, which

were only within the knowledge of the accused persons. Accordingly, in such situation, on the basis of conduct of accused persons only inference is

required to be drawn that all the accused had conspired together to commit the crime. At this juncture, it would be necessary to take note of Section

10 of the Evidence Act, which is reproduced hereinbelow:

“10. Things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design â€" Where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons

have conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, anything said, done or written by any one of such persons in reference to their

common intention, after the time when such intention was first entertained by any one of them, is a relevant fact as against each of the persons

believed to be so conspiring, as well for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any such person

was a party to it.â€​

In the case of conspiracy, Hon’ble Supreme Court in1989 Cr.L.J. 1 (SC) [Kehar Singh Vs. State (Delhi Admn.)] in paragraph 44 has

elaborately considered Section 10 of the Evidence Act. We may not do better than only to quote paragraph i.e. para 44, which is as follows:-

“44. The other ground urged on behalf of the appellants relates to the relevancy of evidence on conspiracy in view of S. 10 of the Evidence Act. It

will be worthwhile to deal with this question of law at this stage. Section 120-A and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code which deals with the question of

conspiracy. Section 120A reads:

“When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done,-

(1) an illegal act, or

(2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means,such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:

Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement

is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.â€​

Section 120-A provides for the definition of criminal conspiracy and it speaks of that when two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done an

act which is an illegal act and S. 120-B provides for the punishment for a criminal conspiracy and it is interesting to note that in order to prove a

conspiracy it has always been felt that it was not easy to get direct evidence. It appears that considering this experience about the proof of conspiracy

that S. 10 of the Indian Evidence Act was enacted. Section 10 reads:

“Things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design - Where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have

conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, anything said, done or written by any one of such persons in reference to their

common intention, after the time when such intention was first entertained by any one of them, is a relevant fact as against each of the persons

believed to be so conspiring, as well for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any such person

was a party to it.â€​

This Section mainly could be divided into two: the first part talks of where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have

conspired to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, and it is only when this condition precedent is satisfied that the subsequent part of the section

comes into operation and it is material to note that this part of the Section talks of reasonable grounds to believe that two or more persons have

conspired together and this evidently has reference to S. 120-A where it is provided ""When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done.

This further has been safeguarded by providing a proviso that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to criminal

conspiracy. It will be therefore necessary that a prima facie case of conspiracy has to be established for application of S. 10. The second part of

Section talks of anything said, done or written by any one of such persons in reference to the common intention after the time when such intention was

first entertained by any one of them is relevant fact against each of the persons believed to be so conspiring as well for the purpose for proving the

existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it. It is clear that this second part permits the use of

evidence which otherwise could not be used against the accused person. It is well settled that act or action of one of the accused could not be used as

evidence against the other. But an exception has been carved out in S. 10 in cases of conspiracy. The second part operates only when the first part of

the Section is clearly established i.e. there must be reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together in the light of the

language of S. 120-A. It is only then the evidence of action or statements made by one of the accused, could be used as evidence against the other. In

Sardar Sardul Singh Caveeshar v. State of Maharashtra, (1964)

2 SCR 378 : (AIR 1965 SC 682 at p. 687), Subha Rao,

J. (as he then was) analysed the provision of S. 10 and made the following observations:

“This section, as the opening words indicate will come into play only when the Court is satisfied that there is reasonable ground to believe that two

or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, that is to say, there should be a prima facie evidence that a

person was a party to the conspiracy before his acts can be used against his co-conspirators. Once such a reasonable ground exists, anything said,

done or written by one of the conspirators in reference to the common intention, after the said intention was entertained, is relevant against the others,

not only for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy but also for proving that the other person was a party to it. The evidentiary value of

the said acts is limited by two circumstances, namely, that the acts shall be in reference to their common intention and in respect of a period after such

intention was entertained by any one of them. The expression 'in reference to their common intention' is very comprehensive and it appears to have

been designedly used to give it a wider scope than the words 'in furtherance of in the English law; with the result, anything said, done or written by a

co-conspirator, after the conspiracy was formed, will be evidence against the other before he entered the field of conspiracy or after he left it.

Another important limitation implicit in the language is indicated by the expressed scope of its relevancy.

Anything so said, done or written is a relevant fact only 'as against each of the persons believed to be so conspiring as well for the purpose of proving

the existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it.' It can be used only for the purpose of proving

the existence of the conspiracy or that the other person was a party to it. It cannot be used in favour of the other party or for the purpose of showing

that such a person was not a party to the conspiracy. In short, the Section can be analysed as follows: (1) There shall be a prima facie evidence

affording a reasonable ground for a Court to believe that two or more persons are members of a conspiracy; (2) if the said condition is fulfilled,

anything said, done or written by any one of them in reference to their common intention will be evidence against the other; (3) anything said, done or

written by him should have been said, done or written by him after the intention was formed by any one of them; (4) it would also be relevant for the

said purpose against another who entered the conspiracy whether it was said, done or written before he entered the conspiracy or after he left it; (5) it

can only be used against a coconspirator and not in his favour.â€​

In the light of these observations and the analysis of Section 10 we will have to examine the evidence led by prosecution in respect of conspiracy.â€​

With the aid of Section 10 of the Evidence Act andcircumstances, which have been noticed hereinabove, it is evident that all the appellants had

conspired together right from the beginning for kidnapping the 11 years old boy of P.W.6. They kidnapped, kept in their captive possession and

thereafter, they killed the boy and buried the dead body on the bank of a canal near Ratanmala. In a well designed manner, they removed clothes of

the deceased, which indicates that those clothes were kept for demanding and taking ransom money and as such, only inference can be drawn that all

the appellants had conspired together for committing the crime.

On examination of entire evidences on record, we aresatisfied that the learned Trial Judge has committed no error in passing the judgment of

conviction so far as appellant(s) Ajay Kumar @ Shiv (in Cr.Appeal DB No. 743 of 2014), Vikash Kumar (in Cr.Appeal DB No. 756 of 2014) and

Madan Ram (in Cr.Appeal DB No. 703 of 2014) is concerned. However, conviction of appellant Rupesh Kumar @ Rupesh Ram (in Cr.Appeal DB

No. 761 of 2014) for commission of offence under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. is concerned, his role had come into play after the murder had already

taken place. So it can be noticed that he was not in conspiracy to murder of the child, but once this fact had come to the notice that the cloth/uniform

of the deceased were handed over to him to conceal for the purposes of collecting ransom, he cannot be spared from commission of offence under

Section 364(A) of the I.P.C. Only his conviction and sentence for offence under Section 302/34 I.P.C. can be interfered with.

In view of facts and circumstances, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09-07-2014 and 15-07-2014 respectively passed in

Sessions Trial No. 405 of 2012 {arising out of Bettiah (Town) P.S. Case No. 192 of 2012} by Sri Jitendra Mishra, learned Adhoc Additional District

and Sessions Judge 1st, Bettiah, West Champaran is,

hereby, approved and the three appeals i.e. Cr. Appeal (DB) No.

743 of 2014, Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 703 of 2014 and Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 756 of 2014 stand dismissed.

So far as conviction and sentence of RupeshKumar @ Rupesh Ram (appellant in Cr.Appeal DB No. 761 of 2014) under Section 302/34 of the

Indian Penal Code is concerned, in view of facts and circumstances is, hereby, set aside. However, his conviction and sentence in respect of

remaining offences are hereby affirmed and his appeal i.e. Cr.

Appeal (DB) No. 761 of 2014 too stands dismissed with above modification.