SURAJSINH ALIAS SONU SURAJSINH COLLECTORSINH ALIAS SEVARAM RAJPUT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (CrPC)
Section 313 - Power to examine the accused.
Section 34 - Acts done by several persons in futherance of common intention
Section 307 - Attempt to murder
Section 353 - Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty
Section 332 - Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
Appeal (Crl.), 695 of 2016, Judgment Date: Apr 18, 2017
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 695 OF 2016
SURAJSINH ALIAS SONU SURAJSINH
COLLECTORSINH ALIAS SEVARAM RAJPUT .......APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF GUJARAT ......RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
1. This appeal has been filed, challenging the judgment of the Gujarat
High Court dated 01.02.2016 dismissing the Criminal Appeal filed by the
appellant, questioning the order of conviction recorded by Ahmedabad City
Sessions Court under Section 364(A) read with Section 114 of IPC.
2. The present appellant and another accused Kamlesh were convicted and
sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of rupees five hundred by City
Sessions Court. Both the accused had filed appeals before the High Court
which have been dismissed. We have been informed that only one of the
convicts has come up in this appeal.
3. The prosecution case in brief is:
On 23.05.2010, one Anurag aged seven years, son of the complainant
alongwith his sister-in-law and her children had gone to attend a marriage
reception of one Dinesh Sharma's sister at Shakriba Party Plot. After the
dinner got over, sister-in-law of the complainant, Smt. Rekhaben when
called for the children to return Anurag was found missing. Smt. Rekhaben
and others started searching for Anurag. Smt. Rekhaben called the
complainant on his mobile phone between about 10 to 10.30PM informing about
the missing of Anurag. Complainant and his wife immediately rushed to
Shakriba Party Plot. In spite of rigorous search throughout, Anurag was
nowhere found. On the next day i.e. 24.05.2010 in the afternoon complainant
alongwith his brother-in-law and friends went to Ramol Police Station and
informed about the missing of Anurag. A missing complaint was registered
being Complaint No. 99/2010. When the inquiry was going on during that
time on 24.05.2010 in the morning around 9 AM – 9:30 AM someone called Mr.
Dinesh Sharma from mobile No. 8128381274 on his mobile No. 9825270948 and
told him that he had the information about the boy who went missing from
the marriage reception on 23.5.2010, but he did not want to reveal the
information to him and told him that he will talk to his aunt only and
asked about the mobile number of complainant's sister-in-law. The
conversation didn't take place as the aunt of the boy was not at home and
was searching for him. Afterwards around 11 O'clock brother-in-law of the
complainant Satyendrasingh and his nephew Vikas told her that she will
receive a call on her phone from someone who wanted to talk to her, but no
call was received till 11.30 AM. After that, around 01.45 PM a call was
received on complainant's mobile by No. 8128381274 and told him that if you
wanted back the boy (Anurag) then he should keep ready Rs.10,00,000/- and
at which place you have to bring money he will call you again. The
complainant told him that he was a poor person please ask for lesser
amount, but the person from other side told him that nothing can be done.
If you wanted the boy, you should keep ready Rs. 10,00,000/- cash or they
will kill the boy. Afterwards the person again called the complainant, but
as the aunt of the boy had returned home she talked to that person, who
also made her talk to Anurag. He again demanded Rs. 10,00,000/- cash for
releasing the boy, which she told after disconnecting the phone.
4. The complainant, thereafter, went to the Police Station and FIR No.
144/2010 under Section 364(A), 114 of IPC was registered on 24.05.2010.
Investigation was taken over by one Police Inspector, Jadeja, who after
recording the statement of witnesses and taking the call details of the
mobile number from which call was received, located the caller at
Rajasthan. Thereafter, a police team was sent to Rajasthan and inquiry was
also made from one Jayeshbhai Anilbhai Makwan in whose name the SIM Card
was found to be registered. He told, he had lost his ID Card few months
ago, which might have been misused.
5. A team of Gujarat Police went to Rajasthan in search of accused
persons. The complainant alongwith few other persons also proceeded to
Dausa, Jaipur. On 28.05.2010, the Rajasthan Police could recover the boy
and also succeeded in arresting the appellant and other accused Kamlesh.
The Rajasthan Police alleging that accused fired on the police party also
registered a case against both the accused under Section 307, 332, 353 and
34 IPC.
6. After investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet against both
the accused. Trial proceeded and prosecution examined as much as nineteen
witnesses in support of its case whereas fifteen documentary evidences were
also produced by the prosecution in support of its case including statement
of call details. The complainant was examined as PW. 3 where as Anurag the
child witness was also examined as PW. 6. PW. 13 Pradosh Nandram Meena
belonging to Rajasthan Police and PW. 14 Pradhan Ramjilal Luhar of Dausa as
Panch witness were also examined by prosecution. Jayeshbhai Anilbhai Makwan
in whose name the SIM Card was registered was also examined as PW. 11 and
Micky alias Gopi from whose shop the SIM Card was purchased, has also been
examined as PW.7. Smt. Rekhaben, sister-in-law of complainant was examined
as P.W.4.
7. Father of the owner of the Bike No. GJ-1-ED-686 was also examined to
prove that bike on which the boy was kidnapped was stolen on 20.05.2010.
The accused did not lead any evidence in support of their defence.
Statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded whereas
they denied the charge.
8. Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, Gujarat after hearing the
learned counsel for the parties found both the accused guilty for offence
under Section 364(A) and 114 IPC and sentenced them life imprisonment.
Aggrieved with the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad,
Gujarat both the accused filed Criminal Appeal No. 884 of 2011 and Criminal
Appeal No. 961 of 2011. Both the appeals have been dismissed by the High
Court vide its judgment dated 01.02.2016. This appeal has been filed by one
of the accused Surajsinh alias Sonu challenging his conviction.
9. On the request of this Court, Shri Amarendra Sharan, Senior Advocate
assisted by Shri Amit Anand Tiwari Advocate have appeared as amicus curiae
and ably assisted the Court. We have also heard learned counsel for the
State. Shri Amarendra Sharan learned senior counsel has taken us to
relevant materials on record. Shri Sharan in support of the appeal has
raised following submissions:
Against the appellant alongwith the other accused an FIR was
registered at Dausa, Rajasthan dated 28.05.2010 under Section 307/34, 332
and 353 and 3/25 Arms Act. It was alleged that accused committed the above
offences and had fired on the police party on 28.05.2010. It is submitted
that appellant had been acquitted in the above case by judgment and order
dated 30.4.2012 of Additional District & Sessions Judge(Fast Track) Dausa,
Rajasthan in Sessions Case No. 67/2010. Hence, the entire incident of
Dausa, Rajasthan as alleged is not proved. It is further contended that SIM
Card bearing No. 8128381274 from which it is alleged that ransom call was
made, was registered in the name of other person and no recovery of the
said SIM Card was made from the appellant. It is further submitted that
with regard to motorcycle by which the boy was alleged to have been
kidnapped, a case under Section 379 IPC was foisted on appellant in which
case also the appellant was acquitted. Shri Sharan submitted that the
testimony of the boy Anurag P.W.6 is not reliable and liable to be
discarded as it has number of discrepancies. He further submits that in
case of testimony of a child witness, it is trite that an independent
corroboration must be looked for. He has referred to statement of P.W.9 who
had stated that he had recorded the kidnapper's voice when the ransom call
was made which was given to P.W.18. He submits that examination of
kidnapper's voice could have clinched the issue. He has further referred to
contradiction with regard to timing as suggested by the prosecution with
respect to recovery of boy at Dausa. He submits that P.W.5 has stated that
he received a phone call from Dausa Police Station and reached on
28.05.2010 at around 09:00 to 09:30 AM, he saw the victim P.W.6 sitting
with the police. He further stated that he had also seen the Appellant and
Accused No. 2 in the Police Station. Shri Sharan also submits that the
arrest of the Appellant and Accused No.2 at Dausa Police Station for the
offences u/s 307/34, 332, 353 and 3/25 Arms act is shown as 12.15 hrs. Shri
Sharan has also expressed serious doubt in the prosecution case with
respect to SIM Card being purchased by the appellant bearing no.
8128381274. It is submitted that prosecution miserably failed to prove the
guilt against accused beyond the reasonable doubt and hence the conviction
deserved to be set-aside.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the State refuting the submission of
the amicus curiae contends that prosecution has successfully proved the
offences by cogent evidence which had been correctly appreciated by the
trial court which recorded conviction against the appellant. It is
submitted that taking of the boy Anurag on 23.05.2010 was proved and
further receipt of ransom call from above mentioned mobile number to the
different persons including the complainant is proved by the call details,
brought on record by the prosecution. After obtaining the location of the
mobile, police party from Gujarat went to Rajasthan. Boy was recovered and
accused were apprehended at Dausa, Jaipur on 28.05.2010 by the Rajasthan
Police. Accused and boys were thereafter handed over to Gujarat Police. The
trial court had found the guilt proved and High Court has also considered
all submissions made on behalf of the appellant and has affirmed the
conviction.
11. We have heard the submission of learned counsel for parties and
perused the record.
12. The arrest of the accused on 28.5.2010 and the recovery of boy from
Dausa, Jaipur has been proved by PW. 13, belonging to Rajasthan Police and
PW. 14, Panch witness. PW. 7 the child witness has narrated the entire
sequence of events from his kidnapping on 23.5.2010 till 28.5.2010 when he
was recovered by Rajasthan Police. Boy was aged seven years at the time of
incident. He has narrated the entire incident and could not be shaken in
the cross-examination. The testimony of child witness was held to be
natural and true by the court below.
13. Learned amicus curiae has placed much reliance on judgment of
Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Dausa, Rajasthan in
Sessions Case No. 67/2010 in which the appellant was acquitted. The copy
of judgment of Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Dausa,
Rajasthan dated 30.04.2012 has been filed as Annexure P. 4. The case was
registered against both the accused at Police Station, Dausa on 28.5.2010.
Boy was recovered and handed over to Gujarat Police. Accused were also
handed over to the Gujarat Police on transfer remand.
14. The perusal of the above judgment would indicate that the Court has
not disbelieved the incident and arrest of the accused on 28.5.2010. The
Court, however, held that the prosecution could not prove charges under
Section 307, 332 and 353 IPC.
15. Before the Additional District & Sessions Judge(Fast Track) Dausa,
Rajasthan Anurag had also appeared as PW. 17 and had identified the
accused. The Court, however, disbelieved the story of firing on police by
the accused. But the Court has convicted other accused Kamlesh. It is
useful to extract the last paragraph of the order of the Additional
District & Sessions Judge(Fast Track) Dausa, Rajasthan which is to the
following effect:
“Considered the arguments of both the sides, the accused Rajesh alias
Kamlesh had kidnapped the child from Gujrat and brought him in Dausa from
where the kidnapped child was recovered from his custody and a Katta 315
Bore Fire Arms was recovered from him. There is serious charge of
demanding ransom of 10 lakh rupees, in which the Gujrat Court has given him
life imprisonment punishment. On seeing the serious charges of kidnapping
and recovery of dangerous arms such as recovery of Katta from the accused
Rajesh alias Kamlesh, I am of the opinion that in such serious type of
offence there will be no just to have any leniency towards the accused.”
16. The other accused from whom country made Katta was recovered, was
awarded sentence of two years imprisonment and a fine of rupees ten
thousand. The appellant was acquitted by giving the benefit of doubt. Thus,
the judgment of Additional District & Sessions Judge(Fast Track) Dausa,
Rajasthan does not help the accused insofar as offence for which he has
been charged in the present case and which has been found proved by the
evidence on record.
17. The fact that appellant was acquitted from charges under Section 307,
332 and 353 IPC by giving benefit of doubt does not in any manner help the
appellant insofar as conviction recorded against him under Section 364(A)
and 114 IPC is concerned.
18. Learned counsel, further contended that appellant was also acquitted
in the case under Section 379 IPC which was registered against him,
alleging theft of the bike which is claimed to be used in kidnapping. The
copy of the order by which accused was acquitted from 379 IPC is not on the
record except Letter dated 01.03.2016 written by Deputy Superintendent,
Ahmedabad Central Prison, Ahmedabad to the appellant giving information
under the Right to Information Act, 2005 with regard to case under Section
379 IPC.
19. The use of motorcycle which was found at Dausa, Rajasthan, when
accused were apprehended in no manner is affected by acquittal of appellant
from charges of theft.
20. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant that SIM Card of
the mobile number from which the ransom call was given has neither been
recovered nor the SIM Card was registered in the name of the accused, hence
the theory of the demand of ransom ought not to have been believed.
21. The trial court had elaborately considered the evidence on record and
had noted that from the mobile no. 8128381274 several calls were made for
ransom. Call was received from the said number to the owner of Shakriba
Party Plot as well as Shri Dinesh Sharma whose sister's marriage function
was organised on the date of incident. Complainant received several calls
on his mobile. The demand of ransom by telephonic calls has been proved by
oral evidence. Complainant as well as his sister-in-law talked to callers
on mobile. Call details of the mobiles were produced before the court below
which was mentioned at Item No. 11 and 12 of the documentary evidence as
extracted by the High Court in para 6 of the judgment.
22. Court did not commit any error in believing the PW. 11 whose identity
card was used for obtaining SIM Card who appeared and has stated that he
had lost his ID Card and Driving Licence six to seven months ago, which was
utilised for obtaining SIM Card. The Court has rightly believed the PW.11
whose no connection was found with the entire episode of kidnapping and
ransom call.
23. Learned amicus curiae submitted that the shop keeper PW. 7 Micky
alias Gopi who had identified the accused in the court, stating that they
had purchased the SIM Card from his shop, had himself in his cross-
examination stated that he visited the police station and was shown the
accused since before. Even if, we ignore the evidence of PW. 7, the guilt
of the accused has been proved by other relevant and material evidence as
noticed by court below.
24. Learned amicus curiae has tried to point out some inconsistencies
between the oral statements of witnesses to contend that entire incident is
not proved, as alleged. The following inconsistencies in the statements of
witnesses i.e. victim have been pointed out:-
"a. The boy was of age 7 when he gave his testimony and being a child
witness was prone to being tutored and influenced.
b. In the very first statement the victim did not name the appellant(pg
106, Vol.2) and (pg 8, Vol. 3).
c. The victim in his examination U/S 164 Cr.PC (pg 44, Vol.2) before
the Ahmedabad Court has stated that the Dausa Police had fired at the
present Appellant and Accused No.2. Whereas in the proceedings in Dausa he
states that accused fired and threw chili powder in the Dausa police(pg
138, Vol.2).
d. The victim states in the proceedings in Ahmedabad (Pg 49, Vol.2, Para
14) states that the Appellant and Accused No.2 was brought after one, one
and a half hour to Dausa Police Station and while in the proceedings at
Dausa(pg.140, Vol.2) he states he has seen the accused for the first time
in the Police Station.
e. Ld. Trial Court at Dausa has rightly disregarded his statement due to
serious contradictions. In fact this led to entire prosecution case
regarding recovery of child from accused persons as doubtful.”
25. Now, we look into above inconsistencies as pointed out by Shri
Sharan. The submission is that the boy being aged 7 years only, he was
prone to being tutored and influenced. The Trial Court has found that
complainant and accused were not known to each other and there was no
reason for complainant and his relatives to give false evidence against the
accused.
26. In the cross-examination of P.W.6, not even a suggestion was given
that he was giving evidence on tutoring by someone. It is further submitted
that the victim has not named the appellant in his first statement. Shri
Sharan refers to statement of victim u/s 161 CPC recorded by I.O. The
question “by what name they call to each other”. The child witness
answered “the person who drives the bike call Kamlesh to other person”. In
his statement before the court, P.W.6 has specifically named both the
appellant and accused being present in the court by narrating the entire
incident of 23.5.2010. P.W.6 made following statement:
“...that person offered for Ice-cream, but I did not accept it, but he
caught hold of my hand and thereafter he put me on bike and closed on my
mouth, that vehicle was driven by Sonu From there they look me to Dhaba and
after taking food slept there I had taken food there...”
27. Further he stated in his evidence “...I recognise that whose names
are Sonu and Kamlesh”. We thus are of the view that appellant was named by
accused.
28. Learned Counsel further states that victim in his examination before
Ahmedabad Court has stated that the Dausa Police has fired at the present
Appellant and the Accused No.2. Whereas in the proceedings in Dausa he
states that accused fired and threw chilli powder at Dausa Police.
29. We have already noticed that offences against accused u/s 307, 332
and 353 IPC were not found to be proved before Dausa Court. Hence,
contradiction in the statement of victim at page 49 before the Ahmedabad
Court is of no significance.
30. Learned Counsel has referred to the statement of victim before Dausa
Court at page 4 where he stated that 'I had seen the accused for the first
time in the police station'. The statement has to be read as a whole.
Reading one sentence here and there does not give full purport of evidence.
In his statement before Dausa Court he has narrated the entire incident
including that when he was standing at Shakriba Party, two gundas kidnapped
him and they took him to Rajasthan. The entire incident has been narrated
in his statement and in the cross-examination his evidence remained
unshaken. Much importance cannot be given to one isolated sentence. As far
as recovery of child from accused person, there is no doubt regarding the
recovery of child from the accused from Dausa, Rajasthan which has been
proved by the Police personnel of Rajasthan and evidence given by
complainant and his brother who also went to Dausa after they were called
by kidnapper to come to Dausa.
31. The submissions that without any evidence High Court has presumed
that custody of victim P.W.6 was with the Appellant and accused no. 2
without any material witness to corroborate. Both the Courts have come to
the conclusion that victim was kidnapped by appellant and accused No.2 with
whom he remained till 28.5.2010 which is proved by ample evidence on
record.
32. The next submission of amicus curiae that victim being a child
witness an independent corroboration has to be looked into. The sequences
of event as narrated by child witness are fully proved by the incident
which happened at Dausa, Rajasthan i.e. recovery of child along with two
accused. Thus, the prosecution case of kidnapping the victim and taking
victim from Shakriba Plot Ahmedabad to Dausa Rajasthan has been fully
proved and the evidence of child witness has been corroborated by evidence
of P.W.3, P.W.5, P.W.13, P.W.14 and evidence of P.W.17.
33. The Amicus Curiae has further referred to contradictions with regard
to timing as suggested by the prosecution with respect to recovery of boy.
Statement of P.W. 5 has been referred where he has stated that he saw the
boy at police station at around 09:00 to 09:30 AM whereas time of arrest
of appellant at Dausa Police Station is shown as 12.15 hrs. The above
minor discrepancy in time when PW. 5 reached police station and saw the
victim and accused, does not make theory of victim and accused being
present incredible. Further the fact that prosecution case is that ransom
call was made from Airtel No.8128381274 whereas this SIM Card was not
recovered from the accused and SIM Card bearing No. 9785612832 belonging to
Idea along with Nokia Mobile 1600 was recovered. When the call from above
Airtel number was made to several mobile numbers i.e. owner of Shakriba
Party Plot, Mukesh Sharma and the complainant, the call details of which
have been produced before the court, non-recovery of SIM Card is not of
much significance. The Nokia phone which was recovered with Idea SIM was
the phone which belonged to Mr. Suresh Chand Ramjilal who has stated that
the phone was stolen. The above circumstances in no manner make the
prosecution story incredible.
34. It is useful to refer to judgment of this Court in Chandrappa and
Others versus State of Karnataka, (2008) 11 SCC 328 where this Court has
laid down that it is unreasonable to expect from a witness to give picture
perfect report of the incident and minor discrepancies have to be ignored.
In para 17 and 18 following was stated by this Court:
“17. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that
the discrepancies between the statements of the eyewitnesses inter se would
go to show that they had not seen the incident and no reliance could thus
be placed on their testimony. It has been pointed out that their statements
were discrepant as to the actual manner of assault and as to the injuries
caused by each of the accused to the deceased and to PW3, the injured
eyewitness. We are of the opinion that in such matters it would be
unreasonable to expect a witness to give a picture perfect report of the
injuries caused by each accused to the deceased or the injured more
particularly where it has been proved on record that the injuries had been
caused by several accused armed with different kinds of weapons.
18. We also find that with the passage of time the memory of an eyewitness
tends to dim and it is perhaps difficult for a witness to recall events
with precision. We have gone through the record and find that the evidence
had been recorded more than five years after the incident and if the memory
had partly failed the eye witnesses and if they had not been able to give
an exact description of the injuries, it would not detract from the
substratum of their evidence. It is however very significant that PW 2 is
the sister of the four appellants, the deceased and PW 3 Devendrappa and in
the dispute between the brothers she had continued to reside with her
father Navilapa who was residing with the appellants, but she has
nevertheless still supported the prosecution. We are of the opinion that in
normal circumstances she would not have given evidence against the
appellants but she has come forth as an eyewitness and supported the
prosecution in all material particulars.”
35. The trial court has thoroughly marshalled the oral and documentary
evidence on record. High court on re-appreciation of such evidence has
affirmed the order of conviction of the appellant. We do not find any error
in the judgment of court below, warranting interference by this Court in
exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. The
appeal lacks merit and is consequently dismissed. Before we close we record
our appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by Shri Amarendra
Sharan, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Amit Anand Tiwari, Advocate.
.................J
[A. K. SIKRI]
..................J
[ASHOK BHUSHAN]
New Delhi
April 18, 2017.
For the Latest Updates
Join Now