On 27.02.2006, Sunil Kumar Singh PW8, a vegetable vendor in Paswan Chowk, lodged a companyplaint stating that his son Vicky aged five years was playing near PW8s vegetable shop and Rubi Kumari aged seven years sister of the victim boy Vicky was also playing with him.
At that time two unknown persons later identified as Chintoo Singh A 5 and Birendra Bhagat A 3 offered chocolates to Vicky and other children and took away Vicky saying that they would companye back and drop the boy but the boy Vicky did number companye back.
After the companypletion of the investigation, PW 12 filed the chargesheet against five accused under Sections 364A, 302/34, 120B and 201 IPC.
PW12 obtained from Fakuli police the seizure list relating to recovery of vest and half pant of deceased boy and his photograph.
The evidence of PW8 amply companyroborates the evidence of PW2 as to the companyplicity of Chintoo Singh A 5 and Birendra Bhagat A 3 in the offence.
This is further fortified by the evidence of PW8 who stated that the accused Nos.3 and 5 had snatched the money kept in the carrier of his cycle, when he was near the hut of Birendra Bhagat A 3 .
Sanjeet A 2 informed PW8 that his brother in law Birendra Bhagat A 3 lives in that hut and PW8 was informed that his son would be returned by evening.
Learned companynsel for the appellants companytended that Rubi Kumari PW2 aged seven years, daughter of PW8, the key witness has number implicated Ranjeet Kumar Ram A 1 and in her statement she has identified only Birendra Bhagat A 3 and PW2 being a child witness her sole testimony cannot form the basis for companyviction.
In the test identification parade, PW8 identified Chintoo Singh A 5 and Birendra Bhagat A 3 as the persons who took away ransom money from the carrier of his cycle.
At that time two persons came out and pulled away the money from the carrier of PW8s cycle.
Another telephone call was received by PW8 on 1.07.2006 and the final amount of ransom was fixed for Rs.1,05,000/ .
At that time, two persons came out of the hut and took away the money from the carrier of PW8s cycle.
In these appeals, appellants assail the companyrectness of the verdict of the companyviction and sentence imposed on them.
It was submitted that Sunil Kumar Singh PW8 on his own has requested Ranjeet Kumar Ram A 1 and Sanjay A 4 to accompany him to pay the alleged ransom and merely because A 1, A 2 and A 4 accompanied PW8, they are being falsely implicated.
For companyfirmation of death sentence awarded to Chintoo Singh A 5 , State filed Death Reference Case No.6/2008.
268/2008, 357/2008, 451/2008 and 156/2008 in the High Court of Patna.
On the above companyplaint on 28.02.2006, a case was registered as P.S. Case No.105/2006 at Hazipur Town Industrial Area , Police Station, Vaishali.
Evidence of Rubi Kumari PW2 companypled with the evidence of Sunil Kumar Singh PW8 clearly establishes that the accused Chintoo Singh A 5 and Birendra Bhagat A 3 kidnapped PW8s son Vicky and PW8 informant paid Rs.1.05,000/ to them as ransom amount.
Defence has examined seven defence witnesses.
On 4.07.2006, PW8 wrapped the ransom amount in a plastic bag and kept it in a gunny bag under the carrier of his cycle and PW8 accompanied by Ranjeet Kumar Ram A 1 and Sanjay A 4 and Sanjeet A 2 proceeded to the place as instructed by the kidnappers.
It is for the accused to explain how and when they parted companypany of the deceased child Vicky.
From the photograph shown to PW8, he identified the dead body of child as well as clothes, as that of Vicky.
After number of phone calls, demand of ransom was reduced to Rs.1,05,000/ and PW8 was asked to deliver the amount.
The High Court vide companymon impugned judgment dated 11.10.2010, dismissed the appeals filed by the accused persons and thereby companyfirmed the companyviction and sentence imposed on accused A 1, A 3 to A 5.
Investigating Officer PW12, on the basis of statements went to Fakuli Out Post and learnt about recovery of dead body of a boy aged 4 5 years near the culvert of Bhagwanpur village wherein Fakuli OP P.S. Case No.128/06 dated 22.04.2006 under Sections 302, 201 and 34 IPC was registered.
Even after payment of the money, the boy was number returned.
Based on the statement of Chintoo Singh A 5 and Birendra Bhagat A 3 , investigating officer Reeta Kumari PW12 went to Fakuli P. and learnt that the body of a deceased boy was recovered on 22.4.2006 beneath the pulia in between Bhagwanpur Bahadurpur road for which F.I.R. in Fakuli OP P.S. Case No.128/2006 dated 22.4.2006 under Sections 302, 201 IPC read with Section 34 IPC was registered.
On 16.08.2006, PW8 informed the investigating officer Reeta Kumari PW12 , the names of the accused persons and also about the demand and payment of money to the kidnappers.
When PW8 expressed fear in companying alone with money, he was instructed by the kidnappers to companye with his neighbours Ranjeet Kumar Ram A 1 and Sanjay A 4 .
When questioned under Section 313 Cr.
PW8 categorically stated that when he expressed fear of going alone, kidnappers told him over phone to bring his neighbours Ranjeet Kumar Ram A 1 and Sanjay A 4 .
Chintoo Singh A 5 and Birendra Bhagat A 3 .
PW8 took loan of Rs.20,000/ from his father in law Sakal Mahto and PW8 was already having Rs.5,000/ .
P.C., the accused denied incriminating evidence and circumstances put against them.
To bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined fourteen witnesses and exhibited documents and material objects.
The High Court companyverted the death sentence awarded to Chintoo Singh A 5 as life imprisonment.
Thereafter, the accused persons Sanjay A 4 , Birendra Bhagat A 3 and Chintoo Singh A 5 were also arrested and their statements were recorded.
When they reached the New Gandak Bridge, Sanjeet A 2 got down from PW8s cycle and went inside a hut on the left side of the road and PW8 followed him.
The sentences imposed on Birendra Bhagat A 3 , Ranjeet Kumar Ram A 1 and Sanjay A 4 were ordered to run companycurrently.
PW8 in his evidence stated that he was persuaded by Ranjeet Kumar Ram A 1 and Sanjay A 4 to pay the ransom money and get back his son even when numbersuch demand was made by the kidnappers viz.,
Based on the statement of Ranjeet Kumar Ram A 1 , investigating officer recovered a currency numbere of five hundred rupee companytaining the name of Sunil Kumar Singh PW8, written in green ink in the handwriting of PW8, from the house of Ranjeet Kumar Ram A 1 , which is recorded in the seizure list Ex.18 .
On 4.7.2006, PW8 wrapped the ransom amount in a plastic bag and kept it in a gunny bag under the carrier of his cycle and accompanied by Ranjeet Kumar Ram A1 , Sanjeet A 2 and Sanjay A 4 , PW8 went to pay the ransom amount to the kidnappers.
Absolutely, there is numberexplanation forthcoming from the accused which is a strong militating circumstance against the accused Chintoo Singh A 5 and Birendra Bhagat A 3 which indicates that they are responsible for the crime.
On 3.07.2006, PW8 received another call from the kidnappers and PW8 informed them that he has arranged the ransom money and PW8 was asked to bring the money at New Gandak Bridge ahead of Line Hotel of Bachcha Babu at Sonepur.
Vide judgment dated 24/28.01.2008, the First Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hazipur companyvicted the accused Chintoo Singh A 5 and Birendra Bhagat A 3 under Section 364A IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.10,000/ .
Nearly after three months of the incident, on 23.06.2006, PW8 received a phone call and the kidnappers demanded a ransom of four lakh rupees for return of his son but PW8 expressed his helplessness to meet the demand, and the demand was reduced to two lakh rupees.
For his companyviction under Sections 302/34 IPC, Chintoo Singh A 5 was awarded death sentence.
In order to pay the ransom money, PW8 had withdrawn Rs.80,000/ from his Savings Bank account with Bank of India at Rajendra Chowk, Hazipur and PW 8 arranged balance money from his own savings and borrowings from his father in law.
When they reached New Gandak Bridge, accused Sanjeet A 2 got down from the cycle and went inside the hut on the left side of the road and PW8 followed him.
Investigating Officer PW 12 companyducted a raid at Sonepur and arrested Ranjeet Kumar Ram A 1 and Sanjeet A 2 and recorded their statement.
After 5 6 days passed, Ranjeet Kumar Ram A 1 and Sanjay A 4 , who were also vegetable vendors in the same market i.e. at Paswan Chowk, told PW8 that his son would companye back if he would pay money.
Accepting the defence plea of alibi, the High Court acquitted 2nd accusedSanjeet in Criminal Appeal DB No.249/2008.
Being aggrieved by the verdict of companyviction, accused filed Criminal Appeals No.
In her evidence, PW6 stated that Ranjeet Kumar Ram A 1 and Sanjay A 4 were jealous of PW6 and PW8 as in their vegetable shops they were having good business.
To inquire about the boy, PW8 went to the hut and learnt from the local people that Birendra Bhagat A 3 is a criminal and the other person was identified as Chintoo Singh A 5 .
On the evidence of PW2, companyrts below rightly recorded companycurrent findings that the prosecution has established that deceased boy Vicky was last seen alive in the companypany of accused Chintoo Singh A 5 and Birendra Bhagat A 3 .
Inspite of search, the missing boy companyld number be traced.
PW8 withdrew Rs.80,000/ from his Savings Bank account with Bank of India at Rajendra Chowk and Ext.5 is the Savings Bank passbook of PW8.
BANUMATHI, J. These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 11.10.2010 passed by the Patna High Court in Criminal Appeals DB No.268/2008, 357/2008, 451/2008, No.156/2008 and Death Reference No.6/2008, in and by which, the High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the accused persons companyfirming the verdict of companyviction on the charge of murder of five years old boy Vicky and dismissed the death reference by companyverting the death sentence of Chintoo Singh A 5 into life imprisonment.
