RAMESHKUMAR BHAVERLAL JAIN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise out of the judgement and order passed by the learned Additional City SessionsJudge, Ahmedabad on 2nd January 1990 in Sessions Case No.296 of 1988, convicting the original accused No.1(appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 141 of 1990) for theoffences under Ss. 302, 201, 363, 343, 343, 364, 365 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, and sentencing him toimprisonment for life for the offence under Sec. 302 of the IPC and to suffer rigorous imprisonment of sixmonths for each of the other offences which were to runconcurrently, and imposing a fine of Rs.200=00, indefault, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.The State has appealed (Criminal Appeal No. 161 of 1990)for enhancement of the sentence praying for imposition ofdeath sentence on the original accused No.1 on the groundthat this was a rarest of rare cases warranting deathpenalty as the said accused No.1 / appellant hadcommitted a cold -blooded murder of his two young cousinsaged 4 years and 7 years, and had acted in a cruel andunusual manner. The original accused No.2 - SandipDinkarlal was acquitted and no appeal has been preferredagainst his acquittal.

(2.) The charge framed against the accused at exh.2alleges that, on 19th April 1988, around 6.00 o'clock inthe evening, these two accused persons i.e. RameshkumarBhanvarlal Jain and Sandip Dinkarlal and one otheraccused Mukesh Shantilal Jain (who is said to be ajuvenile accused) had kidnapped minors Rakesh and Harsh,who were the sons of the complainant - Ghisumal Jain,from his lawful guardianship in order that a big sum ofmoney may be extorted or in order that they may bemurdered, and thereby, committed offences under Ss. 363 and 364 of the IPC. It was further charged thatthese two accused had, after kidnapping Rakesh and Harsh,kept them in wrongful confinement in Block No. 44/339 ofKalapinagar and committed their murder by causinginjuries and thereby, committed offences under Ss. 302, 342, 343, 368 and 385 of the IPC. A further chargewas that these two accused persons, with the intention ofscreening themselves from legal punishment, had causedthe evidence of commission of offence of murder todisappear or had attempted or had tried to destroy theevidence, and thereby, committed the offence undersection 201 of the IPC. Having levelled individualcharges under Ss. 363, 364, 302, 342, 343, 368, 385 and 201 of the IPC, the Charge proceeded to furtherallege that these two accused and Mukesh Shantilal hadentered into a criminal conspiracy to kidnap Rakesh andHarsh for the purpose of extorting a big amount of moneyfrom the complainant - Ghisumal Jain and committed theirmurder and caused disappearance of the evidence of theoffences, and thereby, committed offences under Ss. 302, 201, 342, 343, 363, 364, 368, 385 read with Sec. 120B of the Indian Penal Code. On the same facts, itwas also alleged that these two accused had acted infurtherance of their common intention and a separatecharge was framed for the offences under the aforesaidprovisions read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.An independent charge for abetment of these offences wasalso framed against these two accused persons in contextof the provisions of Sec. 114 of the IPC.

(3.) The accused no.1, who was of 18 years of age atthe relevant time, pleaded not guilty. From the record,it appears that the accused No.1 - Ramesh Bhanvarlal Jainalso used to sign his surname as 'Mehta' and there is nodispute about it. The case of this accused is of totaldenial. In his statement under Sec. 313 of the Codeof Criminal Procedure, he admits having taken the keys ofVishnu Purshottambhai's house in Kalapinagar for thepurpose of study around February 1988. He admits that heused to go to that house for reading purpose. He hasadmitted that, at times, Mukesh used to come with him.When he was confronted with the deposition of witnessSomabhai that one short statured person used to come tothat house with him, he admitted that Mukesh used tosometimes come with him in that house. The accused No.1filed a written reply at exh. 244, in which he statedthat though he had taken the key of Vishnu's house, hehad returned it to him after the examination was over inMarch 1988, and that thereafter, he had never enteredthat house. He has stated that, on 29th April 1988, whenhe was arrested by the police, he was not having the keysof that house. He has stated that he had only shown thehouse of Vishnu to the police and that he did not knowthat there was a dead body lying in it. According tohim, he had not gone to Bhaat village, and states thatwitness Bhikhabhai and Pramukhbhai who are said to haveseen him there, were lying and that the neighbours ofKalapinagar were falsely implicating him. He has deniedthat he had used the stolen scooter which belonged toIndulal. In his statement, he has further stated that heknew Mukesh and Mukesh used to sometimes accompany him tothe house in the Kalapinagar before the examination, andthat he had not met him after the examination. He hasfurther stated that he had not purchased the muddamalcardboard box from witness Narayan Chauhan, nor had hepurchased the jute rope (Bhindi) from witness Sundarmal.He has stated that he had no reason to kill sons of hisuncle and that he had in fact helped his uncle in tryingto trace out the children. He has also denied that hehad purchased perfume from witness Mohammad Miya. He hasstated that he had purchased medicines from witness Dr.Kantilal, who is having his dispensary opposite the housein question, but that was in February 1988.