RAM CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two appeals by special leave against the judgement of the High Court of Allahabad confirming that of the Sessions Judge of Allahabad. Both the appellants were convicted and sentenced for having committed various offences inclusive of the offence under S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of death therefore against each. At the trial there were five other co-accused charged in respect of the same offences but they were all acquitted. The victim of the offences was a boy named Om Prakesh aged about 14 years. He is the son of one Chauhan, a civil gazetted officer in Ordnance Depot, Chheoki, Allahabad, drawing a pay of about Rs. 600 per month and believed to be rich. The case against both the appellants is that they, along with the five others who have been acquitted, conspired to extort a sum of Rs. 10,000 from Chauhan by kidnapping and murdering his son, Om Prakash. The appellant, Ram Chandra, is a person about 25 years in age, who has received education up to Matriculation standard and was working at the time as a clerk in the Accountant-General's office U.P. He is said to have been a native of Kohaat now part of West Pakistan. Appellant, Ram Bharosey, is a person, about 49 years in age and was a clerk in the Municipal Office at Allahabad. Both of them were living in the same street in Allahabad as Chauhan. It is in evidence and not disputed, that the boy, Om Prakash, was in the habit of going to appellant, Ram Chandra's house now and then and mixing with the members of that family, including Ram Chandra. It is also beyond dispute that the boy, Om Prakash, left his house about noon on the 9th June 1952, and is missing since then. In spite of strenuous efforts to trace him he has not so far been found. The prosecution case is that in pursuance of a conspiracy between the two appellants and the acquitted accused, the boy was taken by the two appellants and one Satya Prakash, to the river Jumna on the evening of the 9th June 1952, and that the two appellants took him into the river pretending to teach him swimming and drowned him them forcibly and stabbed him with a knife. Having thus brought about his death and disappearance on the evening of 9th June 1052, they sent a series of threatening letters purporting to be from one Zalim Daku on various dates commencing from June 10, up to July 4, 1952 and pretending that the boy was in his possession and that it a sum of Rs. 10,000 is paid he will he restored or otherwise be will beheaded. During this period they were constantly moving with Chauhan posing themselves as his friends to help him in tracing the boy but in fact misleading him from the right track and persuading him to agree to pay up the amount in order that he may be able to recover the boy. Chauhan ultimately agreed to pay Rs. 5,000 and in fact arranged to pay up the same in the manner which the letters from Zalim Daku indicated. The letters also undertook that the boy will be restored the next day after the payment. But ultimately the boy was not restored though the money was taken away. During this period the police were also on the track. Chauhan lodged a complaint to the police about the disappearance of the boy on June 30, 1952, the very next day. Chauhan was also keeping the police in touch with all the stages and was handing over to them then and there every letter that he was receiving from Zalim Daku. When he paid the ransom on July 4, he took the step of previously producing before the Additional District Magistrate the currency notes of Rs. 5,000 and getting their numbers noted by him. The police traced the possession of some out of these notes to the appellants. A substantial number of those notes were recovered from the appellant, Ram Chandra, and one note was traced to the appellant, Ram Bharosey. Investigation showed that all the letters received by Chauhan purporting to have been sent by Zalim Daku, were in the hand-writing of the appellant Ram Chandra, according to the opinion of the handwriting expert. No trace, however, of the boy could be found. Not only was the dead body not found but absolutely no other material has been discovered which would indicate either thin factum of murder or the perpetrator thereof. Both the appellants were arrested on July 6, 1952. Appellant Ram Chandra made a confession before a Magistrate on October 10. The appellants were thereafter tried and convicted in respect of charges under S. 120-B, Ss. 302, 201, 364 and 386 read with S. 120-B or in the alternative with S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They were sentenced as follows, to death under S.302, I.P.C., to transportation for life under S. 364, I.P.C., to ten years' R.I. under S. 368, I.P.C. and to seven years R.I. under S. 201, I.P.C. No separate sentence was awarded in respect of the offences under S.120-B. These convictions and sentences were confirmed and upheld by the High Court on appeal, and hence this appeal by both the appellants.

(2.) For a proper appreciation of the case, it is necessary to set out briefly the contents of the various leltters admittedly received by Chauhan by post and purporting to be from Zalim Daku. Altogether seven f.-letters were received, Exs. P 2 to P. 8. The first of these, letter purports to have been sent by post on June 10, 1952, and is as follows: -

(3.) As already stated previously, the various letters with the addresses on the envelopes relating thereto purporting to have been written from Zalim Daku have been found by the hand writing expert to be the writing of the appellant Ram Chandra. In addition, to this opinion there were certain items of internal and external evidence which confirmed this opinion. For instance the letters contain information about the movements of Chauhan most of which, on the evidence, were known only to the two appellants. The evidence disclosed also conduct of the appellants which disclosed advance information of the contents of the letters to be received. There was found in the letters the fairly constant use of the word Bagi, which is found to be the characteristic of the appellant Ram Chandre's undisputed letters. There was the fact of his ability to supply certain obvious omissions in the letters such as Nahi when he was asked to read them in the normal course, on the ground of illegibility. These and other features enabled the courts below to find to their satisfaction that all these letters were written by the appellant Ram Chandra. On the basis of the above material the main facts relating to the case, found concurrently by both the courts below are that (1) a substantial portion of the currency notes, whose numbers had been noted and which formed the ransom were found in the possession of the appellant Ram Chandra, (2) one of such notes has been traced to the possession of the appellant Ram Bharosey, who, on the evidence, gave it to the betel shop keeper at the Allahabad Junction Railway station for purchasing betel leaves and (3) all the ransom letters were in the hand-writing of the appellant Ram Chandra. The further important evidence in the case was that relating to the confession made by the appellant Ram Chandra while he was in jail custody. Now as judgment show, the conviction in respect of the offences charged against both these appellants is based mainly on this confession corroborated by the above facts. The first question, therefore, that arises is how far the reliance on the confession for the conviction and sentence relating to the various offences was safe on the facts and circumstances of this case. To appreciate the position, thus arising, it is necessary to set out the confession and the attendant circumstances.