Afr High Court · 2025
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:47393-DB AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Judgment reserved on : 17-07-2025 Judgment delivered on : 16-09-2025 CRA No. 1585 of 2019 1 - Ravindra Krishna Dewangan Son Of Krishna Dewangan Aged About 28 Years R/o Prem Nagar, Near Itwari Shitla Mata Mandir, Nagpur, Police Station Lakadganj, Nagpur (Maharashtra) 2 - Praveen Chandra Shekhar Ghate Son Of Chandra Shekhar Govind Rao Ghate Aged About 28 Years R/o Beside Gopal Krishna Lodge, Vadeda Ring Road Nagpur, Police Station Nandanvan, Nagpur Maharashtra 3 - Sanam Sunil Dhomre Son Of Sunil Dhomre Aged About 22 Years R/o Nehru Nagar Prajapati Nagar, Bhandara Road, Nagpur, Police Station Nandanvan, Nagpur Maharashtra. --- Appellants In Jail versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Mohan Nagar, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh --- Respondent 2 CRA No. 1981 of 2019 Ravi Dada Rao Bansod S/o Dada Rao Bansod Aged About 25 Years R/o Nehru Nagar, Prajapati Nagar, Bhandara Road, Nagpur P.S. Nandanvan, Nagpur (Maharashtra) --- Appellant In Jail Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. P.S. Mohan Nagar, District Durg Chhattisgarh --- Respondent For Appellants : Mr. Shailendra Dubey with Ms. Shivali Dubey and Mr. Jaydeep Singh Yadav, Advocates. For Respondent : Ashish Shukla, Addl. A.G. Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, JJ C A V Judgment Per Rajani Dubey, J Since both these appeals arise out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 1.10.2019 passed by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in ST No.7/2016, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. By the impugned judgment, each of the appellants stands convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction Sentence Under Section 364A/34 of IPC. Life imprisonment, pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to suffer 3 additional RI for two months. Under Section 392/34 of IPC. RI for seven years, pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to suffer additional RI for one month. Under Section 120B of IPC. Life imprisonment, pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to suffer additional RI for two months. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 13.7.2015 complainant Ashish Goyal lodged a report at Police Station Mohan Nagar to the effect that he resides at Kadambari Nagar and engaged in manufacturing of fly-ash bricks. He along with his brother Amit Goyal got a house constructed on their private land at Borsi and for the purpose of selling the said house, they gave advertisement in Dainik Bhaskar newspaper. On 12.7.2015 his brother Amit Goyal received a call on his mobile and the caller told him that he is from Raipur and wants to see the said house. On 13.7.2015 at about 1.15 pm his brother Amit Goyal received a call that they have come from Raipur and are waiting in front of Railway Station, Durg in a swift car. Thereafter, Amit Goyal left for Green Chowk near railway station in his car Maruti Ritz. However, at 3.36 pm the complainant received a call from the mobile of his brother Amit Goyal that his brother has been kidnapped and was asked to make arrangement of Rs.10 lacs within 1- 4 2 hours or else his brother would be killed. Based on the said report,
Legal Reasoning
FIR (Ex.P/2) under Crime No.282/2015 was registered. Thereafter, the complainant and his uncle arranged ransom and at about 10.30 pm as per directions of the accused put the money bag under a board at Indraprastha colony and reached Supela Chowk, Bhilai. At around 11 pm Amit Goyal called the complainant and told that the kidnappers have left him at Urla-Raipur road. Thereafter, Vivek Goyal and Vaibhav Goyal reached the indicated place and took him back to his house. During investigation, spot map Ex.P/30 was prepared and statements of the complainant Ashish Goyal, Amit Goyal and other witnesses were recorded. Against the accused/appellants Crime No.174/2015 was also registered at Police Station Kumhari and during the course of investigation, they were taken into custody and in their memorandum statements they confessed abduction of Amit Goyal for ransom. On search being made at the house of the accused persons in Nagpur on 29.9.2015, cash amount of Rs.6.50 lacs, gold bracelet, gold ring and visiting cards were recovered. The kidnapped person duly identified the accused persons in TIP conducted on 1.10.2015 by the Executive Magistrate. This apart, the kidnapped person also duly identified the gold articles in the TIP conducted on 3.10.2015. After completion of whole investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg. 5 03. Learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 364A/34, 392/34 and 120B of IPC against the accused which were abjured by them and they prayed for trial. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 20 witnesses. Statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of CrPC wherein they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. No witness was examined by them in their defence. 04. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above. Hence these appeals. 05.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the appellants wound submit as under: a) that Test Identification Parade conducted by the police is of no relevance because prior to TIP, their photographs were already published in the newspaper “Patrika” that they kidnapped Amit Goyal for ransom. During pendency of the appeal, the appellants filed an application IA No.03 under Section 391 of CrPC for adducing additional evidence i.e. “Patrika” newspaper and vide order dated 11.4.2023 it was observed that this application shall be decided while hearing the appeal. b) That, TIP was conducted in an unlawful manner as the Executive Magistrate was not aware of the fundamentals of the said 6 proceedings and 10 people which were required for the purpose of TIP were arranged by the abductee himself. No notice was given to the witnesses for their appearance and no independent witness was present in the said proceeding. PW-2 Amit Goyal admits that he visited police station at Raipur on 25.9.2015 and saw one of the accused there, meaning thereby he had already seen one of the accused even prior to information of arrest of the accused persons being sent to the IO, Mohan Nagar by IO, Kumhari on 25.9.2015. c) That, since the photographs of the accused persons were already published in newspaper and their identity was made public, the dock identification is rendered futile and of no consequence. d) That identification of the gold articles recovered from the house of the appellants by the abductee is also doubtful as the witnesses to the said proceedings are interested witnesses; the identification memo dated 3.10.2015 does not bear signature of one of the witnesses namely Shri Vaibhav Agrawal (PW-1) and the police officers were also present at that time. Both the witnesses to the said proceedings stated that they did not read the memo and signed the same at the behest of the police. e) That, IO Surendra Shrivastava (PW-18) in his cross-examination (para 22) admits that he did not inform the local police at Nagpur regarding recovery being effected. The IO failed to offer any 7 explanation for deviation from the legal procedure of informing the local police before conducting any proceeding in their jurisdiction. f) That, the prosecution has also failed to prove that the amount recovered from the accused was the same amount of ransom. Further there is also no evidence on record to prove ownership of the gold articles recovered. g) That, recovery is made on 29.9.2015 and identification of recovered gold articles is made on 3.10.2015 but no evidence was led by the prosecution that during this period the recovered article was kept in safe custody in sealed condition. h) That for similar offence under Crime No.174/2015 the accused/appellants have already been acquitted of all the charges by learned trial court by giving them benefit of doubt vide judgment dated 13.3.2019 passed by 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in ST No.8/2016. In this judgment it is observed that memorandum statements, recovery and identification proceedings are highly questionable and doubtful. i) That, recovery of cash amount as also gold ornaments from the house of the appellants is highly doubtful because witness signed recovery memo at Mohan Nagar Police Station, the recovered articles were never sealed and no specimen seal was mentioned in the recovery memo. This apart the articles 8 recovered were never produced before the learned trial Court nor were shown to the appellants during trial. j) That, on 26.9.2015 the accused/appellants were in custody of Kumhari Police Station in Crime No.174/15 and during investigation on 26.9.2015 the IO Laxman Kumeti (PW-15) made recovery from accused Ravi Bansod, Sanam, Praveen and Ravindra at 9.30, 9.50, 10.25 and 11.30 respectively at Kabir Nagar, Raipur vide Ex.P/34, P/36, P/35 and P/33. On the same day i.e. 26.9.2015 also memorandum of appellant Ravindra is said to have been recorded by IO Surendra Shrivastava vide Ex.P/4 at Kumhari Police Station, Durg at 11.20 in the present Crime No.282/15 which is highly impossible. k) That no call details of the complainant, abductee and the accused persons were obtained and produced by the prosecution to substantiate its case whereas it was a best piece of evidence to prove involvement of the accused persons. l) That, IO Surendra Shrivastava (PW-18) in para 43 of his deposition admits that looking to the bank statement of accused Ravindra Krishna Dewangan obtained from State Bank of India, Main Branch, Nagpur he cannot tell as to who deposited amount in his account. He also admits that in the said bank statement there is no seal or signature of the bank officials and it is a computer generated document which is an electronic record. He admits that he did not demand certificate u/s 65B of the 9 Evidence Act in respect of this bank statement. As such, relevancy and admissibility of such piece of document is doubtful. m) That, PW-18 Surendra Shrivastava admits that he did not make panchanama of the house of the complainant and the abductee situated at Madhuban Nagar, Borsi and also did not seize any document as to its ownership. n) That, PW-18 did not make seizure of Swift Dzire car which was allegedly used by the accused/appellants in commission of the offence. He explained that since the said car was already seized in Crime No.174/2015 by Kumhari Police Station on 24.9.2015, he placed copy of the said seizure memo on record. Even no photograph of the said car was placed on record. o) That, the entire prosecution story is based on the fact that Amit Goyal was allegedly sitting in the car of the accused persons in front of Cambean Hotel, however, there is no evidence on record that support the said story as neither there is any panchanama or eyewitness on record nor is the same mentioned in the spot map drawn by the IO. p) That, all the ingredients necessary for constituting offence u/s 364A of IPC are not proved by the prosecution. There is no evidence or any medical report with regard to threatening to cause hurt or death to the kidnapped person nor any hurt was caused to him. Though knives and ropes were allegedly 10 recovered from the accused persons but same were never taken into custody by the IO. As per statement of Amit Goyal it is clear that he was not kept in confinement or threatened to death or any hurt by the accused persons.
Decision
In view of the above submission, the impugned judgment is not legally sustainable and is thus liable to be set aside and the appellants be acquitted of all the charges. Reliance has been placed on the decisions in the matters of Deoraj Deju Suvarna Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1994 CrLJ 3602; Niranjan Lal Vs State of Haryana, 1995 CrlJ 248; Balkar Singh Vs. State of UP, 1990 CrLJ 77 Allahabad; Vijayan @ Rajan Vs. State of Kerala, AIR 1999 SC 1086; Ravi @ Ravichandran Vs. State represented by Inspect of Police, (2007) 15 SCC 372; Varun Chaudhari Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2011 SC 72; Mustkeen Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2011 SC 2769; Vijay Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2014) 3 SCC 412; Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Principal Secy., (2014) 2 SCC 532; Arjkun Panditrao Khotkar Vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and others in Civil Appeal No.20825-20826/2017, judgment dated 14.7.2020; Sheik Ahmed Vs. State of Telangana, CRA No.533/2021 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.308 of 2021) decided on June 28, 2021; Gireesan Nair & others Vs. State of Kerala, (2023) 1 SCC 180; and William Stephen Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another, (2024) 5 SCC 258. 11 06. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the contention of the appellants submits that the learned trial Court upon proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence has rightly passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence which needs no interference by this Court. Therefore, the present appeals being devoid of any substance are liable to be dismissed. Reliance has been placed on the decisions in the matters of Hema Vs. State, (2013) 10 SCC 192, Mehboob Ali and another Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2016) 14 SCC 640; Yogesh Singh Vs. Mahabeer Singh and others, AIR 2016 SC 5160; and the order dated 28.6.2024 passed by High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in CRR No.1118/2022 in the matter of Bholu Singh and others Vs. State of Jharkhand. 07. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 08. As regards the application IA No.03 filed in CRA No.1585/2019 under Section 391 of CrPC for adducing additional evidence, investigating officer PW-18 Surendra Shrivastava in para 56 of his deposition states that he has no knowledge whether photographs of the accused persons were published on 26.9.2015 in daily newspaper “Patrika”. He admitted identification of all the accused persons on the basis of photocopy of daily newspaper “Patrika” published on 12 26.9.2015. Thus, it is clear that during trial, photocopy of the daily newspaper “Patrika” was shown to PW-18 and he was cross-examined on this point. Being so, there is no need to allow this application for adducing such additional evidence and also there is no need to remand the case to the trial Court for exhibiting this additional document and conducting trial on the said point. Therefore, the application (IA No.03) filed u/s 391 of CrPC is hereby rejected. 09. It is clear from the record of learned trial Court that the appellants were charged under Sections 364A/34, 392/34 and 120B of IPC and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants under these sections as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment. 10. PW-2 Amit Goyal states that he received a call on 12th July of Ravindra Dewangan from Raipur who enquired from him about the advertisement given in newspaper for selling his house and requested him for showing the house. He informed about this call to his brother Ashish Goyal in the evening. Next day he again received a call from another number and the caller told that it is he who made him a call yesterday and requested for showing the house for sale. Thereupon he (PW-2) replied that he does not show the house, he would tell him the location and after reaching the spot, a boy who resides there would show him the house. However, when they insisted for showing the house by him only as they are not acquainted with the routes of Durg- 13 Bhilai, he asked them about the place of meeting. They replied that he should come near Durg Railway Station. Thereafter, they again called him and said that they are reaching within 10 minutes, on which he told them to stay at Green Chowk where he is coming. After some time a white coloured car stopped there and one boy alighted from it. At this juncture, the trial Court showing the accused persons present in the Court asked this witness as to who was that boy. On this, this witness replied that at that time he did not know his name but today he knows that he is Ravindra Krishan Dewangan. The trial Court verified the said accused. 11. This witness states that the accused shook hands with him and asked whether he is the person who wants to sell the house and he replied in the affirmative. In para 6 he states that when he again told them that he would tell them the route and location and they should go of their own, accused Ravindra told that they are not acquainted with the routes and insisted for accompanying them. When he asked them to go by their own vehicle and he would come by his own, the accused Ravindra told that instead of going by separate vehicles, he should come with them. On this, he (PW-2) sat in their vehicle on the backseat with Ravindra and Praveen Ghate; the vehicle was being driven by accused Sanam Sunil Dongre and accused Ravi was sitting beside him. At this stage, the learned trial Court verified all these names disclosed by this witness by asking the accused persons. 14 12. In para 9 he states that after seeing the college when the vehicle took u-turn at around 2 o’clock, accused Praveen having caught hold of his neck from behind pressed his head down. Accused Ravindra also caught him and told that they would do nothing to him and would release him after getting money. He states that one of the accused put knife on his back, tied his hands back, tied his legs and blindfolded him. He states that thereafter he was made to lie between two accused in such a position so that he could not be seen from outside. He states that when he requested them to release him, they said that they would release him after getting Rs.10 lacs. However, when he told that at present he has no money, they started abusing and threatening him to kill. At that time, the accused persons snatched his gold ring, bracelet, money, mobile and key of the car. He states that when he told the accused persons that if they make him talk to his younger brother he can arrange the money, then they made him talk to his brother through mobile phone. He told his brother that he has been kidnapped and the kidnappers are demanding money, on which his brother replied that he would arrange the money. Thereafter, the accused persons also talked to his brother and told him to make arrangement of money and they would call him after 1 – 1 ½ hours. Thereafter the accused persons made him (Amit Goyal) roam around in the car for 1 – 1 ½ hours. He states that the accused persons again called his brother and asked him to come alone at around 7-8 pm with money at Tatibandh Chowk. After some time the accused persons took him (PW-2) to some place where 15 they loosened the rope tied around his hands and legs and made him sit there. He states that since he was blindfolded he could not see that place but it was like a house where fan was also running. In para 18 he states that it was only accused Ravindra Krishna Dewangan who was talking to him throughout. When the Court asked as to how did he know that it was Ravindra only who was talking to him as he was blindfolded, he explained that since when he met the accused persons, Ravindra Krishna shook hands with him and talked to him, therefore, he recognizes him. 13. PW-2 Amit Goyal further states that after obtaining ransom from his brother, the accused persons left him at Urla and returned him the mobile and key of his car. When he informed his brother through mobile that he is at Urla, he advised him to call Sagar Goyal who will pick him. Then he called Sagar and asked him to come near a factory at Urla. Thereafter, Vivek, Sagar and one person of Crime Branch came there to take him. In cross-examination he denied the suggestion that after selling the said house, the amount was to be distributed between the brothers and also denied the suggestion that there is dispute between the brothers in connection with distribution of said money. In para 33 he denied the suggestion that he lost Rs.10 lacs in gambling, therefore, he concocted this story. He admits that after being released he did not go to police station but went to his house straightway. He admits the 16 suggestion that while giving statement in Mohan Nagar police station, he did not know names of the accused. When he was called at DD Nagar police station in Raipur, at that time only one accused was present there. He admits that he was called at DD Nagar police station and next day when the incident of kidnapping at Kumhari police station was published in the newspaper, he does not remember whether names and photos of the accused were published in the newspaper or not. 14. According to this witness he identified the accused persons in the Tehsil Office premises at Durg as per TIP Memo Ex.P/1. This TIP was conducted on 1.10.2015 by the Executive Magistrate. The IO admitted publication of photographs of all the accused in the newspaper on 26.9.2015. So, learned counsel for the appellants strongly objected to the reliability of TIP Memo Ex.P/1. However, it is clear from the statement of PW-2 Amit Goyal that he went with all the accused persons in their car and remained with them for about 8-9 hours. It is clear from paras 6 & 7 of his deposition that he identified accused Ravindra Krishna Dewangan before the trial Court that it is he who shook hands with him; he (PW-2) sat in their vehicle on the backseat with Ravindra and Praveen Ghate; the vehicle was being driven by accused Sanam Sunil Dongre and accused Ravi was sitting beside him. In para 8 he again states that he showed them his house at about 1.30 pm and also told them about its price and that the 17 accused persons enquired about any college in the nearby area and its distance from the house. He states that after seeing the college when they took u-turn, it was getting around 2 o’clock. Thus, it is clear that PW-2 spent sufficient time with the accused persons in broad day light and before the trial Court he identified each of the accused and narrated their individual act including their position in the car. It is also not in dispute that this witness was blindfolded after some time and as such, he had the opportunity of seeing the accused persons. In his lengthy cross-examination he remained firm. Therefore looking to the categorical statement of this witness, it would be hazardous to discard the evidence of this witness merely on the ground that photographs of the accused were already published in some newspaper. 15. PW-5 Ashish Goyal, brother of Amit Goyal (PW-2), states in examination-in-chief that at about 12.30 pm his brother went to show the house and at around 3.30 he received a call from his brother Amit who informed him about his kidnapping and requested for making arrangement of Rs.10 lacs. One of the accused also asked him to make arrangement of ten lacs or else his brother would be killed and also warned of not informing the police about it. He then discussed the matter with his family members and uncle and then they went to Mohan Nagar police station where report was lodged vide Ex.P/2 which bears his signature from A to A part. 18 From the FIR (Ex.P/2), it is clear that the same was lodged by Ashish Goyal on the same day i.e. 13.7.2025 at 18:25 hours. In this FIR he clearly stated that his brother has been kidnapped by some people in a swift car and they are demanding ransom for releasing him. 16. PW-12 Krishna Yadav states that he is working in the newly constructed house of Ashish Goyal and Amit Goyal at Borsi. On the date of incident Amit Goyal asked him over phone to keep the house unlocked as he is coming with some people to show the house. After some time, at around 2 pm Amit Goyal came there with four persons. He states that Bhaiyya (Amit Goyal) and two boys got off the car and those two boys were shown the house by Amit. Two boys were sitting in the car and he could not see them. However, he expressed his inability to identify those boys as he was on other side. He states that after some time, Amit went back with them in the car and in the evening he came to know from a police person that Amit has been kidnapped. 17. PW-3 Rajkumar Goyal, uncle of Amit Goyal, states that he was informed by Ashish Goyal that Amit Goyal has been kidnapped and ten lacs is being demanded as ransom. Thereafter he arranged the money and went to lodge report with Mohan Nagar police station. He sent his son Sagar with Ashish to Raipur for getting Amit released by giving ransom to the kidnappers. After getting ransom, Amit was released at around 12 night and then Sagar and Ashish brought Amit to him. He 19 states that Amit was very much scared and crying a lot. Later on, Amit narrated the whole incident to him. He denied the suggestion of the defence that there is dispute between both the nephews (Ashish Goyal and Amit Goyal) in connection with the property. 18. PW-4 Sagar Goyal states that he along with Ashish Goyal went with the ransom to Raipur in separate vehicles. Ashish was driving a white coloured Ritz car whereas he was riding motorcycle. Ashish was talking with the accused over mobile and Ashish told him that the accused persons are calling him near Indraprastha Colony at Ring Road No.1 ahead of Tatibandh. Ashish stopped the car in Indraprastha Colony and put the bag there. As soon as Ashish turned his vehicle towards Tatibandh, he saw that one boy came on a bike and picked up the said bag. Thereafter they searched for Amit and ultimately he was found at Urla. He states that Amit was crying a lot, his physical and mental condition was very pathetic and he was terrified. He admits the suggestion that after being released by the kidnappers, they brought Amit to Durg and meanwhile they did not inform police stations at Raipur, Mohan Nagar, Durg or any other police station. 19. PW-7 Lokesh Singh is a witness to the memorandum and seizure. He admitted his signature on the memorandum statements of Ex.P/4, P/6, P/8, P/10 and seizure memos Ex.P/5, P/7, P/9 & P/11 from A to A part. He is also a witness to TIP memo Ex.P/1 and admits his signature thereon from C to C part. He states that Amit Goyal also 20 identified gold chain/bracelet and gold ring before him vide Ex.P/4 which bears his signature from B to B part. In cross-examination he admits that he has been working as driver in the house of Amit Goyal for the last three years and getting Rs.6,000/- pm salary. He admits that he has become witness in this case at the behest of Amit Goyal. He admits that when he went to Nagpur, 4-5 police personnel were with him. He also admits that he went with the police to Nagpur by booking Tavera vehicle. He admits the suggestion that when he went to Kumhari police station, on that day the accused persons were kept there handcuffed. He states that when he went inside the house of Ravindra Krishna, his father, mother and sister were there. In para 14 he states that when he went inside the house of accused Ravi, there was one woman in the house whom he does not know. He states that the distance between the houses of Ravindra and Ravi is about 10-11 km. He admits in para 25 that he is not aware of seizure made from the house of Ravindra at Nagpur from his mother and father. He also expressed ignorance about the fact whether any person named Sharad accompanied him or not. He denied the suggestion that he is making false statement at the behest of Amit Goyal. 20. PW-11 Sharad Kumar, another witness to memorandum and seizure, also admitted his signature on all the documents from B to B part. However, he denied any seizure proceeding before him. The prosecution declared him hostile and cross-examined where he denied 21 seizure proceedings as per seizure memo Ex.P/5. Though he admitted that accused Ravindra Krishna went to State Bank of India, Link Office (Nagpur) with the police before him but expressed ignorance about any seizure there. He admits that he took the police and the accused in the vehicle wherever accused Ravindra Krishna indicated. He also admitted that he remained with the police and accused Ravindra Krishan throughout. 21. It is thus clear from the memorandum statements of the accused persons and the seizure effected in pursuance thereof that the accused persons admitted kidnapping and snatching. As per memorandum of accused Praveen (Ex.P/6), Rs.1000/- was seized from him vide Ex.P/7. Memorandum of accused Ravi (Ex.P/8) led to seizure of Rs.2500/- vide Ex.P/9 and on the memorandum of accused Sanam Sunil (Ex.P/10), Rs.1500/- was seized (Ex.P/11). However, as per spot inspection panchanama (Ex.P/12), no ornament or money was recovered. As per seizure memo Ex.P/13, a sum of Rs.38,000/- withdrawn by accused Ravindra Krishan from SBI, Main Branch, Link Office, Nagpur, was seized. The police also filed certain documents concerning another Crime No.174/2015 registered at Police Station – Kumhari, Distt. Durg i.e. Ex.P/20, P/21, P/26, P/27, P/28 & P/29. In the said crime number, memorandum of accused Ravindra Dewangan (Ex.P/20) was recorded on 24.9.2015 wherein he admitted commission of the present crime 22 and as per seizure memo Ex.P/29, a total sum of Rs.6 lacs from his Swift and two mobile phones were seized. It is clear from this memorandum that accused Ravindra Dewangan admitted kidnapping of Amit Goyal on 24.9.2015 but in this case the police prepared memorandum and seizure Ex.P/4 to P/13 and seized only Rs.1000/-, 2500/- & 1500/- from accused Praveen Ghate, Ravi and Sanam Sunil respectively. 22. PW-15 Laxman Kumeti, Station House Officer at Police Station – Kumhari, conducted investigation into Crime No.174/2015. He states that he recorded memorandum of accused Ravindra Krishna and the original memorandum is filed in ST No.8/2018 arising out of Crime No.174/2015. He also sent written intimation on 25.9.2015 to Police Station – Mohan Nagar vide Ex.P/21. The document of Ex.P/21 reads “ का(cid:2)ኋ(cid:2)(cid:4)लኋ था(cid:2)ना(cid:2) ्ቚभा(cid:2)री(cid:11) धा(cid:2)ना(cid:2) का(cid:13) म्हा(cid:2)री(cid:11) जि(cid:17)ल(cid:2)- दु्ቇ(cid:4) as under: ्ቚति(cid:21), था(cid:2)ना(cid:2) ्ቚभा(cid:2)री(cid:11) महा(cid:23)दኋ था(cid:2)ना(cid:2) म(cid:23)हाना ना्ቇरी जि(cid:17)ल(cid:2)- दु्ቇ(cid:4) (छ.्ቇ.) ति(cid:26)षኋ- था(cid:2)ना(cid:2) का(cid:13) म्हा(cid:2)री(cid:11) का(cid:28) अप० ्ቅ० 174/15 धा(cid:2)री(cid:2) 365, 364(A), 368/34 भा(cid:2)दति(cid:26) का(cid:28) ्ቚकारीण म" ति्ቇरीफ्(cid:21)(cid:2)री तिकाኋ(cid:28) ्ቇኋ(cid:28) आरी(cid:23)प(cid:11) 1) रीति(cid:26)न््ቖ द(cid:28)(cid:26)(cid:2)’्ቇना 2) सनाम स(cid:13)ना(cid:11)ल ढो(cid:23)्ቇरी(cid:28) 3) रीति(cid:26) बस(cid:23)ढ़ 4) ्ቚ(cid:26)(cid:11)ण घा(cid:2)टे(cid:28) तिका (cid:17)(cid:2)नाका(cid:2)री(cid:11) का(cid:28) स’ब’धा म" महा(cid:23)दኋ, 23 तिना(cid:26)(cid:28)दना हा. तिका था(cid:2)ना(cid:2) का(cid:13) म्हा(cid:2)री(cid:11) म" दिद० 24/09/15 का(cid:23) उक्(cid:21) ति(cid:26)षኋ(cid:2)’तिका(cid:21) आरी(cid:23)तिपኋ2 का(cid:23) ति्ቇरीफ्(cid:21)(cid:2)री तिकाኋ(cid:2) ्ቇኋ(cid:2) हा. (cid:17)(cid:23) प3छ(cid:21)(cid:2)छ का(cid:28) द4री(cid:2)ना दिद० 13/07/15 का(cid:23) अमिम(cid:21) ्ቇ(cid:23)ኋल का(cid:2) अपहारीण कारी ति6री4(cid:21)(cid:11) का(cid:2) रीकाम 10 ल(cid:2)ख रुपኋ(cid:28) ल(cid:28)ना(cid:2) औरी का(cid:13) छ प.स(cid:23) का(cid:23) ख्ቊ(cid:4) कारी द(cid:28)ना(cid:2) (cid:21)था(cid:2) ख्ቊ(cid:4) स(cid:28) ब(cid:2)का; शे(cid:28)ष रीकाम अपना(cid:28) प(cid:2)स ना(cid:2)्ቇप(cid:13)री ቌኔ(cid:28)्ቔ म" छिछप(cid:2) कारी रीखना(cid:2) ब(cid:21)(cid:2) रीहा(cid:28) हा@। काB पኋ(cid:2) आरी(cid:23)तिपኋ2 का; प3छ(cid:21)(cid:2)छ हा(cid:28)ड स(cid:2)दरी स3्ቊना(cid:2)था(cid:4) । था(cid:2)ना(cid:2) ्ቚभा(cid:2)री(cid:11) प(cid:13)छिलस था(cid:2)ना(cid:2) का(cid:13) म्हा(cid:2)री(cid:11) जि(cid:17)ल(cid:2)- दु्ቇ(cid:4) (छ.्ቇ.)” 23. PW-18 Surendra Shrivastava, investigating officer in the present case, states that he lodged FIR on 13.7.2015 under Cr.No.282/2015 under Section 364 of IPC which is Ex.P/2 and he admitted his signature on this from B to B part. In para 4 he states that on 26.9.2015 at 11.20 am he recorded memorandum statement of accused Ravindra Krishna Dewangan at PS-Kumhari vide Ex.P/4. On the same day he recorded statement of accused Praveen vide Ex.P/6, memorandum of accused Ravidada Rao Bansod vide Ex.P/8 and the memorandum of accused Sanam Sunil Dongre vide Ex.P/10. He states that on 29.9.2015 on the basis of memorandum of accused Ravindra, he searched the spot and prepared spot inspection panchanama Ex.P/12. As per seizure memo of Ex.P/5, he recovered a rexine bag on being produced by accused Ravindra from his house which contained Rs.6.45 lacs, one gold bracelet of 15 gm, one gold ring of 7 gm and 24 two visiting cards of Goel Brothers. In cross-examination he admits that he did not seize the vehicle used in commission of crime as the same was already seized in another case by Kumhari police station and therefore, in the present case he filed the certified photocopy of memorandum statements and seizure memos prepared in another case. He also admits that Rs.38,000/- was withdrawn by accused Ravindra from SBI, Main Branch, Nagpur and he got the same seized vide Ex.P/13. He also admits in para 48 that he did not obtain any document from the abductee in relation to ownership of the gold ring and gold bracelet which were seized as per Ex.P/5. He then volunteers that abductee Amit Goyal had given description of the seized gold ring and gold bracelet and the accused persons disclosed in their memorandum statements about loot of the said property from Amit Goyal. He denied the suggestion in para 72 that one month prior to the date of incident accused Ravindra Dewangan came to Mohan Nagar police station for lodging report against the abductee Amit Goyal regarding some transaction. He denied the suggestion that on this complaint, he enquired from Amit Goyal and Ashish Goyal. In cross- examination he remained firm on his statement that after recording memorandum statements he went with the witnesses to Nagpur at the house of the accused Ravindra Krishna and Praveen Ghate. PW-7 Lukesh Sinha and PW-11 Sharad Kumar Sahu have also supported this statement of the IO that they went with the police party to Nagpur where some seizure was effected during investigation. 25 24. PW-2 Amit Goyal states that the accused snatched his bracelet and ring, he identified the bracelet and ring vide identification memo Ex.P/4. PW-10 Devnarayan Chandrakar, who is a witness to Ex.P/4, states that Amit Goyal identified his bracelet and ring before him. In cross-examination he admits that he did not receive any notice in writing for participating in the identification proceedings. He states that he does not remember as to how many bracelets and rings were mixed for conducting identification proceedings. 25. As per seizure memo of Ex.P/5 a rexine bag was seized from accused Ravindra Krishna Dewangan on being produced by him from his house which contained Rs.6.45 lacs, one gold bracelet of 15 gm, one gold ring of 7 gm and two visiting cards of Goel Brothers. This seizure was made on the basis of memorandum statement of accused Ravindra Krishna Dewangan vide Ex.P/4 and both the witnesses admitted this fact that they went with the police party to the house of accused Ravindra Krishna Dewangan. Though some contradictions and omissions have been pointed out by the defence in their depositions but abductee Amit Goyal has categorically stated about his kidnapping, duly identified all the four accused persons and his ornaments which were recovered from the house of accused Ravindra. 26. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mehboob Ali (supra) held in paras 13, 14, 19 & 20 of its judgment as under: 26 “13. For application of Section 27 of Evidence Act, admissible portion of confessional statement has to be found as to a fact which were the immediate cause of the discovery, only that would be part of legal evidence and not the rest. In a statement if something new is discovered or recovered from the accused which was not in the knowledge of the Police before disclosure statement of the accused is recorded, is admissible in the evidence. 14. Section 27 of Evidence Act refers when any “fact” is deposed. Fact has been defined in Section 3 of the Act. Same is quoted below : “Fact” means and includes— (1) any thing, state of things, or relation of things, capable of being perceived by the senses; (2) any mental condition of which any person is conscious. Illustrations: (a) That there are certain objects arranged in a certain order in a certain place, is a fact. (b) That a man heard or saw something, is a fact. (c) That a man said certain words, is a fact. (d) That a man holds a certain opinion, has a certain intention, acts in good faith, or fraudulently, or uses a particular word in a particular sense, or is or was at a specified time conscious of a particular sensation, is a fact. (e) That a man has a certain reputation, is a fact. “Relevant”. —One fact is said to be relevant to another when the one is connected with the other in any of the ways referred to in the provisions of this Act relating to the relevancy of facts.” 27 19. In Subedar V. King Emperor, [AIR 1924 All. 207] it was held that a statement made by the accused implicating himself and others cannot be called ‘first information report’. However it was held that though it could not be treated as first information report but could be used as information furnished under Section 27 of Evidence Act. It was held thus : (SCC OnLine All para 3) “3. … The approver and one of the appellants were arrested practically red-handed. They made statements to the officer who arrested them involving admissions of guilt. They went further and gave a list of the other members of the gang. Thereupon the officer made a report in writing to his superior, containing the information which he had received, including the names of those other persons received from the two men arrested. Somehow or other, the learned Judge has described this police report, which is merely the report of a confession, as “the first information report.” Now the first information report is a well known technical description of a report under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code, giving first information of a cognizable crime. This is usually made by the complainant, or by some one on his behalf. The language is inapplicable to a statement made by the accused. The novelty of a statement by an accused person being called the first information report was to me so strange, that when counsel for the appellants addressed his argument to me attacking the Judge’s use of the first information report, I took no notice of the argument. The learned Judge realized that he was dealing with a confession, but he momentarily failed to appreciate that the document itself was inadmissible, and that the only way in which the information relied upon could be 28 used was by Section 27. That is to say, with regard to the other accused, the officer giving evidence might say : “I arrested them in consequence of information received from Narain and Thakuri. When I arrested them they made a statement to me which caused me to arrest these people”. The use which can legitimately be made of such information is merely this, that when direct evidence is given against the accused at the trial and there was evidence against the accused, it is open to the defence to check such evidence by asking whether the name of a particular accused was mentioned or not at the time” 20. Considering the aforesaid dictums, it is apparent that there was discovery of a fact as per the statement of Mehmood Ali and Mohd. Firoz. Co- accused was nabbed on the basis of identification made by the accused Mehboob and Firoz. That he was dealing with fake currency notes came to the knowledge of police through them. Recovery of forged currency notes was also made from Anju Ali. Thus the aforesaid accused had the knowledge about co-accused Anju Ali who was nabbed at their instance and on the basis of their identification. These facts were not to the knowledge of the Police hence the statements of the accused persons leading to discovery of fact are clearly admissible as per the provisions contained in Section 27 of the Evidence Act which carves out an exception to the general provisions about inadmissibility of confession made under police custody contained in Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act.” 27. In light of above, in the present case also it is clear that all the accused persons were arrested in connection with other crime number where in their memorandum statements they disclosed about the present kidnapping of Amit Goyal and on such information being given, 29 the police of Police Station – Kumhari sent written intimation to Police Station – Mohan Nagar based on which PW-18 investigation officer recorded memorandum statements of all the accused persons and at their instance went to Nagpur and recovered ornaments and cash from the house of accused Ravindra Krishna Dewangan. Learned counsel for the appellants strongly objected to the TIP and recovery of small amount from other accused persons but it is clear from the statement of Amit Goyal that he had sufficient time with the accused persons in broad day light and he remained with them for about 8-9 hours. In the Court also he was asked as to how he identified the voice of one of the accused, to which he explained that it is accused Ravindra who shook hands with him and talked to him throughout. 28. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, we are of the opinion that based on the evidence adduced by the prosecution it has successfully proved that it is the accused/appellant who hatched a criminal conspiracy for kidnapping Amit Goyal for ransom and in furtherance thereof, kidnapped Amit Goyal and received ransom of Rs.10 lacs and also snatched his ornaments and other articles on the threat of life. Having gone through the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the appellants, we find that they being distinguishable on facts are of no help to the appellants. Learned trial court also minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence in its correct perspective and as such, was justified in holding the accused/appellants guilty under Sections 364A/34, 392/34 and 120B of IPC. 30 29. As regards the quantum of sentence, learned counsel for the appellants also alternatively submitted for reduction of sentence to the period already undergone by the accused/appellants as they are facing trial since 2016, languishing in jail for the last about 10 years and these appeals are pending since 2019. However, offence under Section 364A of IPC being punishable with death or imprisonment for life only, there is no scope for any reduction in sentence. 30. In the result, both the appeals being devoid of any substance are liable to be dismissed and are, accordingly, dismissed. The appellants are reported to be in jail, therefore, no further order regarding their arrest, surrender etc. is required to be passed. A copy of this judgment along with original record be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for information and compliance. A copy of this judgment be also forwarded to the concerned Jail Superintendent where the appellants are undergoing the sentence, for information and necessary action. Sd/ (Rajani Dubey) Judge Digitally signed by MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Date: 2025.09.17 10:14:40 +0530 MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Khan Sd/ (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge