RANJEET KUMAR RAM@ RANJEET KUMAR DAS v. STATE OF BIHAR
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Sanjay (A-4) is set aside and this appeal is allowed
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 120B, 201, 302, 364A
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 164, 313
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ss. 25, 27
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Conviction qua A-1 and A-4: A·3 is the brother in-law of A-1. Had there been no complicity of A-1 in the commission of the offence, on knowing for the first time H 40 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 7 S.C.R. A that his brother- in-law…
Judgment
#5. Conviction qua A-1 and A-4: A·3 is the brother in-law of A-1. Had there been no complicity of A-1 in the commission of the offence, on knowing for the first time H 40 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 7 S.C.R. A that his brother- in-law A-3 was involved in the kidnapping, A-1 must have been greatly shocked and he must have questioned his brother-in-law A-3 as to why he had committed such gruesome act of kidnapping his neighbour's son? But A-1 had not reacted to the B situation and he remained quiet. His conduct in not showing any reaction is not in consonance with natural human conduct. -This conduct of A-1 coupled with the evidence that he has been persuading PWB to pay the money to kidnappers to get back his son leads to the irresistible inference that A-1 shared the common intention with A-3 and A-5 in kidnapping the child 'and committing murder. Recovery of currency note from the house of A-1 is yet another link strengthening his complicity in the commission of offence. Considering the act of A-1 and the proved circumstances, courts below rightly held that A-1 had the common intention of kidnapping and committing murder of the boy. [Paras 25, 26 and 28] [53-8-G; 54-F] C 0 E F
#6. As far as A4 is concerned, he is also a vegetable vendor in the same market. Though the circumstances that he has also persuaded PWB to pay the ransom amount to kidnappers and also accompanied PWB to pay the ransom amount to the kidnappers, A-4 might have accompanied PWB as a bonafide helper. Neither any recovery was made from A-4 nor anyincriminating evidence is available against him. Though there may be strong suspicion about his involvement in the G commission of the offence, suspicion however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof. The case against A-4 is not proved beyond reasonable doubt and his conviction is liable to be set aside. [Para 29] [54-G-H; 55-A-B] H State of M.P vs. Mansingh & Ors. (2003) 10 SCC 414: RANJEET KUMAR RAM @ RANJEET KUMAR DAS v. STATE OF BIHAR ·-
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Sanjay (A-4) is set aside and this appeal is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 34, 120B, 201, 302, 364A; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 164, 313; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — ss. 25, 27.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.