JOGENDER AND THREE OTHERS Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 15th July 1991, a first information report was lodged, where it was contended by the informant that his son has been kidnapped on 10th June 1991. In course of investigation into said first information report, appellant No. 4 was arrested on 20th July 1991. On 21st July 1991, appellant No. 4 led the police team to a particular place and stated by pointing at a place that the son of the informant was done away with by him and others, and thereafter, his dead body was buried there. Search of the dead body / skeleton in the vicinity was made, but nothing was found. In course of investigation, a shirt and pant of the son of the informant was also recovered from appellant No. 4. Ring of the son of the informant was recovered from appellant No. 2. In course of investigation it transpired that the appellants were last seen with the son of the informant. Accordingly, in the police report it was alleged that all the appellants are guilty of offences punishable under Sections 365 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 thereof. The charge on the basis of the said police report was framed, and to prove the same, several witnesses were brought. At this stage, it must be indicated that in the first information report it was alleged that ransom demand was made by three persons named in the first information report, and by one person, who is unknown. Accordingly, the police report was similar also against those three persons named in the first information report and similar charges were also framed against them. In order to establish that the son of the informant was kidnapped, whereupon a demand for ransom was made, and ultimately he was done away with, prosecution relied upon the evidence of P.W.5, a letter said to have been received by the informant on 16 / 17th June 1991, asking the informant to come at a particular place with the ransom money of Rs. 1,50,000/ - and alleged recovery on discloser of applicant No. 4. P.W.5 deposed that he saw last the son of the informant walking in between the four appellants with his head hung. The letter demanding ransom allegedly received by the informant on 16 / 17th June 1991, was not sent to Handwriting Expert with admitted handwritings of any of the appellants for comparison, instead the same was sent for chemical examination. The Chemical Examiner deposed that on the state of things as is available it cannot be said who had written the said letter. At the same time, the recovery memo makes it abundantly clear that neither the dead body, nor the skeleton, and not even any bones of the son of the informant was recovered on the discloser by the appellant No. 4. The court below did not accept the story of the informant that the persons named and the unknown person referred in the first information report, demanded ransom from him and accordingly, exonerated all those three FIR named accused persons. The trial court held that the appellants are guilty in as much as they have confessed their guilt and such confession is reflected on written records signed and accepted by all the appellants. The fact remains that the prosecution has utterly failed to establish the fact that the son of the informant is dead. The evidence produced by the prosecution through P.W.5 clearly demolishes the case of abduction. The evidence of P.W.5 is that he saw the son of the informant walking alongwith the appellants. P.W.5 did not say that the son of the informant was in custody of any of the appellants or he was walking alongwith the appellants on being compelled by the appellants to do so. The letter demanding ransom, it was not established in the course of trial, was written by any of the appellants. Recovery of shirt and pant of the son of the informant from the appellant No. 4, and the ring from the appellant No. 2 does not establish a case of kidnapping. Confessional statements, having been given to the police, have no evidence value. In the absence of proof that the son of the informant is dead, question of making any enquiry whether such death was caused by way of culpable homicide amounting to murder did never arise. We, accordingly, allow the appeal, set aside the judgment and order under appeal and also the sentence awarded to the appellants. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged.