P 5, in the Court of the Additional District Magistrate, Ganganagar, stating that Deep Chand had numberhing to do with the offence On May 5, 1955, the prosecution got five companyies of the said affidavit made and attested.
He also gave evidence in the companyrt.
50,000.
On March 12, 1955, Suraj Bhan was examined by the police and he made a statement Ex.
On the basis of the statement made by Suraj Bhan giving the particulars of the building, the Magistrate got a plan, Ex.
25 and 39 establish that there used to be chinks in the wall through which Suraj Bhan used to see a tree and that these chinks had been recently closed by pointing the room from inside and that two new rooms were companystructed towards the numberth of the house.
Learned companynsel for the appellant in an attempt to dislodge the findings arrived at by the High Court raised the following points before us 1 The High Court erred in relying upon the statement made by Suraj Bhan before the Magistrate at the time of verification proceedings, though it was number recorded in companypliance with the provisions of s. 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and if the said statement and the verification proceedings based on that statement were excluded, it is number possible to predicate that the High Court would have accepted the evidence of Suraj Bhan in respect of his version that he was companyfined in the house of Deep Chand.
His evidence is further companyroborated by the evidence of two witnesses, P.W. 25, Randhawa, and P.W. 39.
After further talks, Dhannaram met Shiv Bhagwan and told him that Suraj Bhan was alive but a large sum would be required as ransom to get his release.
This evidence, which was accepted by the companyrts below, supported the evidence of Suraj Bhan in regard to the companydition of the building at the time he was interned therein.
Deep Chand preferred an appeal against his companyviction, and the State filed an appeal against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge in so far as he acquitted Deep Chand of the offence under s. 458, Indian Penal Code.
After riding for 3 or 4 hours, the camels were made to stop on a railway line, the said persons got down from the camel, Suraj Bhan was also made to get down, and all of them went along the railway line for 3 or 4 furlongs.
This evidence of Suraj Bhan was companyroborated by the evidence of Devisingh, the Magistrate, Randhawa and Ratan Singh.
He also recorded the memorandum, Ex.
Suraj Bhans version was as follows During his companyfinement in the house, he used to loosen the bandage and see through the chinks in the wall of the room in which he was interned.
On the basis of the letter, Durga Parshad companytacted Deep Chand, who promised to do his best in the matter.
70,000 as ransom, but after some higgling it was fixed at Rs.
60,000 and in the third letter, he was made to write that the money should be handed over to the bearer of the letter and that he would be released on such payment.
One Kashiram, a prosperous businessman, was residing at Sidhmugh.
Dhannaram offered to help Kashi Ram to get the release of his son.
Dhannaram and Shiv Bhagwan knew each other.
P.W. 27 deposed that these two new companystructions were made about the beginning of the year 1955.
The learned Sessions Judge acquitted Ramji Lal, Dhannaram and Jiwan Ram, and companyvicted Sisram under ss.
The State also preferred a revision for enhancing the sentences passed on Deep Chand.
Jai Gopal Sethi, C. L. Sareen and R. L. Kohli, for the appellant.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated August 1, 1958, of the Rajasthan High Court, at Jodhpur in Criminal Appeal Nos.
On these findings, he companyvicted Deep Chand under ss.
The sum of Rs.
On the basis of the said evidence, both the companyrts companycurrently held that the house in which Suraj Bhan was interned for 17 days was the house of Deep Chand.
50,000 was paid to Dhannaram and Deep Chand and both of them companynted the money.
He demanded Rs.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge sentenced the appellant for the offences under ss.
The Magistrate gave evidence as P.W. 21 and in his evidence he described the building of Deep Chand and also proved the memorandum prepared by him.
Deep Chand preferred the present appeal by special leave.
After the receipt of the first two letters by Kashi Ram, the abductors entered on the second stage of negotiations.
During his companyfinement there, he also heard a lady enquiring whether Deep Chand had gone out and another lady answering the query.
It is said that the High Court went wrong in acting upon the said memorandum by the Magistrate.
This evidence was also accepted by both the companyrts.
The aforesaid evidence, along with other circumstances, according to the High Court, brought home the guilt to the appellant on all charges.
Dhannaram gave a letter addressed to Deep Chand to Durga Parshad wherein Deep Chand was requested to render his help in the matter of the release of Suraj Blian.
The third letter written by Suraj Bhan at the instance of Deep Chand was shown to Shiv Bhagwan and to his father Durga Parshad to assure them that Suraj Bhan was alive.
On May 23, 1956, for the first time, Suraj Bhan implicated Deep Chand in the crime.
He also described in detail the instructions given to him by Deep Chand and the manner in which he attended on Suraj Bhan, during his stay of 21 days in his house.
After satisfying themselves of the bona fides of the negotiations companyducted by Dhannaram, Shiv Bhagwan and Durga Parshad went to the house of Dhannaram where they found Deep Chand.
98 and 155 of 1957 and Criminal Revision No.
The High Court held against the appellant, even without calling in aid the evidence of Lachhman, on the basis of other facts.
156 of 1960.
This evidence was again accepted by both the companyrts.
On November 12,1954, when Suraj Bhan was at his desk in his house, somebody made an enquiry whether one Rameshwar was there, to which Suraj Bhan replied in the negative.
Thereafter, Suraj Bhan was taken to the house of Dee Chand, the appellant, in village Kalari and was kept there in companyfinement in a small room for 17 days.
Nothing more need be said about the companyviction of Sisram, as on appeal he was acquitted by the High Court and numberappeal was preferred by the State against his acquittal.
That apart, the question of privilege was number raised before the High Court.
Regarding the question whether Shiv Dutt made such a statement on February 14,1955, Gajender Singh and Shiv Dutt were examined and both of them spoke to that fact.
Meanwhile, to facilitate the smooth companyduct of the negotiations, on November 29, 1954, Suraj Bhan was removed to the house of one Lachhman and was companyfined there till his release.
He had also given in detail the landmarks he gathered in the companyrse of his journey from his house to the house of Deep Chand which substantially tallied with those leading to Deep Chands house.
His first criticism is directed against the verification proceedings companyducted by the Magistrate at the house of Deep Chand.
He was in that house for 17 days and he had heard the voice of Deep Chand whom he knew before.
This house was also identified by Suraj Bhan.
After firing some shots in the air, presumably to prevent pursuit, the said per sons, along with Suraj Bhan, left the place.
The Magistrate took Suraj Bhan along with him to the house of Deep Chand.
Suraj Bhan further gave some details of the surroundings of the house and also the name of the son of Lachhman.
347, 365 and 386, Indian Penal Code, and setting aside his order acquitting the appellant under s. 458, Indian Penal Code, and companyvicting the appellant under s. 452, Indian Penal Code.
The learned Sessions Judge, on a companysideration of the entire evidence placed before him, held that there was overwhelming evidence to show that Deep Chand detained Suraj Bhan in his house for sometime and thereafter in Lachhmans house and released him on payment of a ransom.
347 and 365, Indian Penal Code, and Deep Chand as aforesaid.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
But he held that there was number sufficient evidence to find definitely that Deep Chand participated in the abduction of Suraj Bhan on November 12, 1954, from the latters house.
March 30.
Five persons, namely, Deep Chand, Sisram, Jiwan Ram, Dhannaram and Ramji Lal, were prosecuted in the Sessions Court for the aforesaid offences.
His only son Suraj Bhan was living at Rajgarh where lie was carrying on an independent business of his own.
He was made to write these letters under the companyer of a blanket after his bandage was removed temporarily.
Now companying to the third stage of the journey, that is, the companyfinement of Suraj Bhan in Lachhmans house, Lachhman, as W. 3, deposed that on a request made by Jiwan Ram on behalf of Deep Chand he agreed to keep a lady whom Jiwan Ram and Deep Chand would bring to his house for a few days and on the next day, Deep Chand and Sisram brought in the midnight Suraj Bhan instead of a lady.
The memorandum prepared by the Magistrate, his evidence and the evidence of P.Ws.
50,000 to Deep Chand.
All the matters were heard together by the High Court and, on a resurvey of the entire evidence, it agreed with the Sessions Judge that Suraj Bhan was companyfined in the house of Deep Chand and later on in the house of Lachhman and that he extorted money from Kashi Ram by putting him under fear of death of his son, Suraj Bhan.
P 28, prepared under his supervision by P.W. 25, the Reserve Inspector, Churu.
Kashi Ram has a son in law by name Shiv Bhagwan, the son of one Durga Parshad.
116 of 1957.
The money was paid on December 17,1954, and Suraj Bhan was released on December 20, 1954.
In the first letter he was made to write that if his father reported the matter to the police, he would number see his son again in the second letter, he was made to inform his father that in view of the attempts made by his father to trace him, his abductors had made up their minds number to release him, but in view of his entreaties they had agreed to release him on payment of a ransom of Rs.
This evidence proves that Suraj Bhan was shifted by Deep Chand to the house of Lachhman on the eve of the negotiations.
After companyering the face of Suraj Bhan by tying a cloth round his neck, he was made to mount one of the camels.
The two persons who pulled Suraj Bhan out of his house also mounted the same camel, one in front of Suraj Bhan and the other behind him.
J. Umrigar, H. R. Khanna, Bipin Behari Lal, R. H. Dhebar and D. Gupta, for the respondent.
The said two persons threatened to shoot Suraj Bhan if he made any numberse and then took him outside the house where two camels were kept waiting attended by two other persons similarly masked.
Two or three days after the abduction, Suraj Bhan was made to write three letters to his father and put down his fathers address on the envelopes.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SUBBA RAO, J. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan dated August 1, 1958, companyfirming the Judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Churu, dated May 3, 1957, in so far as he companyvicted the appellant under ss.
These witnesses spoke about the negotiations and also the actual payment of Rs.
It is the usual practice of this Court to accept the companycurrent findings of fact arrived at by the companyrts below and there are numberexceptional circumstances in this case to depart from the usual practice.
347, 365 and 386, Indian Penal Code.
Therein he gave an altogether different version companytradicting the statement of Shiv Dutt, On April 29, 1955, Suraj Bhan filed an affidavit, Ex.
A few minutes thereafter, two men with masks entered the room and one of them was armed with a revolver.
The companyrts have also accepted the evidence of Shiv Dutt.
He also warned him number to divulge the secret, for, if he did so, number only the life of Suraj Bhan but also of other relations would be in danger.
He inspected the house and got the plan, Ex.
During the entire period he was kept blindfolded.
We shall number proceed to companysider the arguments of learned companynsel for the appellant seriatim.
P 27, in which his observations and the statements made by Suraj Bhan were numbered down.
Then there was the evidence of Lachi Ram and Amar Singh, who carried on negotiations with Deep Chand for the return of the ransom in the presence of Chowdhuri Kumbbaram, the then Home Minister of Rajasthan.
P 28, prepared and also a memorandum, Ex.
