Shankarlal Banjare vs Rameshari Bai

Conviction,Sentence

Under Section 364-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short

'the IPC')","Life imprisonment with fine amount of Rs.5000/- and, in

default of payment of fine amount, further Rigorous

Imprisonment for 3 months each

Under Section 302 IPC,"Life imprisonment with fine amount of Rs.5000/- and, in

default of fine amount, further Rigorous Imprisonment for

3 months each.

365 IPC,"Seven years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of

Rs.5,000/- and, in default of payment of fine amount.

Additional RI for one month each.

201 IPC,"Three years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of

Rs.5,000/- and, in default of payment of fine amount.

Additional RI for one month each.

Sentences have been directed to run concurrently.,

that upon queries being made to his son by showing him the photographs of the said Maruti Zen Car, then he replied that the said Car was in the",

possession of his father Vijay Bahadur and one Ram Vilas, the absconded accused person and informed that they had gone to attend the wedding",

ceremony.,

This witness (P.W.6) has stated further in his evidence that he received a phone call from the abductors directing him to come with ransom,

amount of Rs.5 lakhs when he was at Mugalsarai and according to their further instructions he reached the school situated at Kajora along with the,

amount of Rs.5 lakhs in a bag, which was taken by the appellant Krishna Singh and thereafter they went away. He has put forth further that next day,",

when he did not receive any phone call from his brother, then he went to the Police Station for furnishing information where he had seen the same",

bag, by which, the appellant Krishna Singh had taken the said amount of Rs.5 lakhs from him. He has stated further that he came to know from the",

Police authorities that one person was killed behind the school, who was identified by him to be his brother and, in the meantime, he was directed to",

come to the Police Station Mohmadabad, District Gajipur to identify a dead body recovered from the river Ganges and was burnt to ashes declaring",

the same to be unclaimed dead body and upon showing the photographs of the dead body by the Police, it was identified by him to be his father",

Jagdish Prasad Mishra.,

According to his further statement, he received the telephonic information from the Police Station Andal (District Durgapur) that they have",

arrested the accused persons and upon reaching the Police Station he identified the appellant Krishna Singh as the person who had taken the alleged,

ransom amount from him.,

Premlata Mishra (P.W.7) is the wife of deceased Jagdish Prasad Mishra and has stated in her evidence that her husband had gone to Korba by,

Maruti Zen Car on 24.02.2009. Vijay Shankar Mishra (P.W.8) and Abhishek Kumar Singh (P.W.9) have turned hostile without supporting the,

prosecution case while Awadhesh Singh (P.W.10) and Ashok Kumar (P.W.11) are formal witnesses. Surendra Singh (P.W.12) has stated in his,

evidence that he knew the appellant Vijay Bahadur Singh, who informed him that he had taken the sum of Rs.5 lakhs from the son of priest and killed",

the priest. Nothing has been elicited from his evidence as he has not supported the prosecution case.,

Asif Khan (P.W.13) is the witness of inquest (Ex.P.11) but has not supported the prosecution case. Shyam Sunder (P.W.14) and Ram Nagina,

Singh (P.W.19) have also turned hostile as they did not support the prosecution case. Sahayal Singh (P.W.15) is a Constable and remained as formal,

witness. K.R. Sahu (P.W.16) is the Investigating Officer and has supported the prosecution case. Mukti Tirkey (P.W.17) is the S.D.O.P. Koria,",

under whose direction, the Investigating Officer K.R.Sahu (P.W.16) has conducted the investigation. S.R.Dhritlahre (P.W.18), Lalji Shukla (P.W.20)",

and Ranjit Ram (P.W.21) also took part in investigating the matter. Rajesh Kumar Singh (P.W.1) is the formal witness and has not supported the,

prosecution case. Brij Kishore Sharma (P.W.2), Dadan Singh (P.W.3), Mohan Kumar (P.W.4) and Avinash Pandey (P.W.5) have turned hostile",

without supporting the prosecution story.,

Perusal of the aforesaid evidence would show that there is no direct evidence with regard to abduction and the murder of the,

complainant's father Jagdish Prasad Mishra and, the case is completely based upon the circumstantial evidence. In a catena of cases such as",

“Shanti Devi v. State of Rajasthanâ€, “Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of M.P.†and “Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State ofÂ",

Maharashtra†reported respectively in (2012) 12 SCC 158, 1952 SCR 1091 and (1984) 4 SCC 116, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down certain",

principles to be followed in cases of circumstantial evidence, which are as under:-",

(1) The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be proved must be cogently or firmly established.,

(2) The circumstances should of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused.,

(3) The circumstances taken cumulatively must form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability,",

the crime was committed by the accused and none else.,

(4) The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the,

guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.,

Reverting back to the case in hand where it emerges from a bare perusal of the aforesaid statements that the complainant Rohit Mishra's father,

Jagdish Prasad Mishra had gone to Korba from Chirmiri on 24.02.2009 for the purpose of servicing his Maruti Zen Estilo Car bearing its registration,

No. JH-05-U-8837 but did not return even by the evening of the same day. A written missing report (Ex.P.5) was, therefore, lodged by his son Rohit",

Mishra on 27.02.2009 at Police Station Kotwali, Korba and that upon enquiry being made owing to the alleged report, it was revealed that the",

complainant's father had been abducted by the appellants with the help of other absconding accused persons along with the said vehicle, i.e., Maruti",

Zen Estilo Car. However, the evidence adduced by the prosecution, vis-a-vis, the missing report (Ex.P.5) and the first information report (Ex.P.18)",

registered on the strength of the said missing report would show that none of the appellants have ever demanded the alleged ransom amount from the,

complainant else the demand of alleged ransom amount must have been mentioned in the said written missing report (Ex.P.5) lodged by the,

deceased's son Rohit Mishra. Non-mentioning of the same would, therefore, create a doubt regarding the authenticity of the prosecution story. What is",

reflected further from bare perusal of the complainant's statement is that he has seen the very same bag in the Police Station, by which, the ransom",

amount of Rs.5 lakhs was taken from him by the appellant Krishna Singh, however, the same has not been corroborated by any of the prosecution",

witnesses.,

Moreover, his (complainant's) further statement, as stated in para â€" 3, would show that when he was returning from Korba, he contacted his",

father from his Mobile phone but the abductor has picked up the Mobile phone and demanded the ransom amount of Rs.50 lakhs for the release of his,

father and the conversation so made in this regard was not only recorded but was handed over to the Police Authorities also. However, no such",

recording was placed on record by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it. Besides, nothing was recovered including the alleged Maruti Zen",

Estilo Car from any of the appellants and even on the basis of the disclosure statement (Ex.P.6) of the appellant Vijay Bahadur. In essence, what we",

have gathered, under the facts and circumstances of the case, is that the communication demanding alleged ransom amount, the material link itself,",

was completely missing in this case. In such an eventuality and that by applying the principles laid down in the above mentioned case laws, it cannot",

be held that the appellants are involved in any manner in the commission of alleged crime. The Court below has not weighed the evidence in the,

proper perspective while arriving at the conclusion of guilt of the accused/appellants, therefore, the findings recorded by the Court below do not",

deserve affirmation.,

Consequently, both these appeals are allowed and the conviction of the appellants under Sections 364-A, 365, 302 and 201 IPC and the sentence",

awarded thereunder vide judgment dated 10.03.2017 in Sessions Trial No.18/2011 are hereby set aside. The appellants are hereby acquitted of the,

aforesaid charges. They shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.",