Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 364A, 392 and 120B – Kidnapping for ransom – Robbery – Prosecution case that the appellants kidnapped a minor boy for ransom and robbed him, and on payment of ransom of Rs. One crore, the boy was released – FIR was registered by police on the basis of the secret information received by them while patrolling about such offences – Pursuant thereto, first disclosure of the incident made by the grandfather to the Investigating Officer, however, FIR was not registered regarding the alleged kidnapping of the boy – Conviction and sentence of the appellants for the offences punishable u/ss. 364A, 392 and 120B by the trial court – Upheld by the High Court – Correctness: Held: Entire prosecution story totally concocted and does not inspire confidence – Inherent improbabilities in the versions of the two star prosecution witnesses-father of the kidnapped boy and the kidnapped boy – Prosecution failed to examine the most relevant witness-grandfather which compels the Court to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution – No convincing evidence led by the prosecution to connect the accused persons with the suspected mobile numbers – FIR could not have been registered on the basis of the secret information received by SI because the said information did not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence – If at all, the FIR had to be registered, on the basis of the statement of grandfather recorded by the police officials – However, no such steps taken by the police officials, thus, creates doubt on the bona fides of the actions of the Investigating Agency – Complainant party failed to offer logical explanation for failing to file an FIR even after the kidnapped boy had returned home – Delay in taking legal action creates a grave doubt on the truthfulness of the entire prosecution case – Kidnapped boy though knew accused A2 from before and claims to have identified him at the time of the incident however did not disclose his name to the police officials till the statement was recorded by the investigating officer – Also omission of the names of the accused persons in the special report – Furthermore, identification of the accused by the boy not free from doubt – Prosecution case failed to led trustworthy evidence to establish the recovery of the currency notes at the instance of the accused because the disclosure statements were not proved as per law – Currency notes were handed back to father without any order of the Court which is an act of gross misconduct on the part of the Investigating Officer – High Court as well as the trial court failed to advert to these important loopholes and shortcomings in the evidence available on record which are fatal to the prosecution case – Prosecution case is fabricated and the accused were framed in the case for ulterior motive – No iota of truth in the prosecution story – Thus, conviction of the accused appellants by the trial court and as affirmed by the High Court cannot be sustained – Judgment passed by the courts below quashed and set aside – Evidence. [Paras 30, 31, 51-55]
FIR – Registration by police officials merely based on source information – Effect:
Held: Police officials could not register the FIR merely on the basis of such source information without even verifying the fact as to whether any such incident had actually occurred – Very fact that the said FIR was registered by referring to an incident without making any verification from the aggrieved persons clearly shows that the Investigating Agency right from inception had started plotting that the case should proceed in a particular direction – This is a very suspicious circumstance which creates a grave doubt on the conduct of the Investigating Agency. [Para 34]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 451, 452 and 457 – Disposal of property – Action of the Investigating Officer in returning the mudammal currency notes to the complainant without any order of the Court – Effect:
Held: Disposal of the case property could only have been done by taking recourse to the procedure contained u/ss. 451, 452 and 457 as the case may be – Investigation Officer had no authority to release the currency notes without an order of the Court and his action to the contrary tantamounts to grave misconduct – Trial court causally brushed aside the plea regarding the non-production of the currency notes in the Court observing that the recovered currency notes were released on superdari by the Magistrate – However, the trial court went on to note that the currency notes were never seen after the recovery and were not produced in the Court when the prosecution witnesses were examined – No order for final disposal of the currency notes was passed by the trial court u/s. 452 which is a mandatory requirement – Sheer indifference exhibited by the courts below is shocking, to say the least – Thus, the entire process of recovery of the currency notes is clearly flawed, marked by procedural errors – Courts below erred by not pulling up the prosecution for flagrant disregard of legal procedures and failure to document key details which undermines the prosecution’s case. [Para 42] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 311 – Evidence Act, 1872 – s. 165 – Power to summon material witness, or examine person present – Power to put questions or order production – Ambit of:
Held: Conjoint reading of s. 311 CrPC and s. 165 of the Evidence Act makes it clear that the trial court is under an obligation not to act as a mere spectator and should proactively participate in the trial proceedings, so as to ensure that neither any extraneous material is permitted to be brought on record nor any relevant fact is left out – It is the duty of the trial court to ensure that all such evidence which is essential for the just decision of the case is brought on record irrespective of the fact that the party concerned omits to do so – On facts, grandfather of the kidnapped boy was the first person who came into contact of the police officials and he admittedly disclosed about the incident to Investigating Officer, thus, the grandfather would have been the most vital witness to unfurl the truth of the matter, however, for the reasons best known to the prosecution, he was not examined as a witness in the case – Trial court should have remained vigilant and it was absolutely essential for the Court to have exercised powers u/s.
311 CrPC read with s. 165 of the Evidence Act so as to summon and examine the grandfather in evidence because his evidence was essential for a just decision of the case – Non-examination of the said witness at the trial is a fatal lacuna to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution. [Paras 47, 48, 50] Witness – Non-examination of the most relevant witness at the trial – Effect:
Held: Trial court failed to perform its lawful obligation u/s. 311 CrPC rw s. 165 of the Evidence Act – Most vital witness whose deposition was imperative for arriving at the truth of the matter not produced by the prosecution and the trial court took no steps whatsoever to summon him by exercising its powers u/s. 311 CrPC and s.165 of the Evidence Act – Non-examination of the said witness at the trial is a fatal lacuna leading to an adverse inference against the prosecution – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 311 – Evidence Act, 1872 – s. 165. [Paras 47]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.