1 2025:CGHC:61594 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No. 156 of 2004  Satish Chandrakar S/o Ravi Chandrakar, Aged about 21 years, R/o. Subhash Nagar, Durg, Tah and Distt. Durg (C.G.) ---- Appellant Versus  State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Durg. Dist. Durg (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Adil Minhaz, Advocate For State : Mr. Ajit Singh, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Judgment on Board 15.12.202 5 1. Challenge in this criminal appeal is to the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 23.01.2004 passed in Session Trial No.252/2001, by which, learned Additional Session Judge (FTC), Durg, Chhattisgarh, convicted the appellant for offence punishable under Section 364-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo RI for 07 years and fine of Rs.2,000/-, in 2 default to undergo additional RI for 04 months. 2. In brief, the prosecution story is that on 18.03.2001, complainant Dr. Girdhari Lal Bajaj (PW-13) was returning back from Durg to Amrawati alongwith his friend Chandi Ram (PW-14) and driver Udhdhav Shilke in his own Ford car No. MH/27/H/0990. Near about 11–11:15 am, when they crossed village Tumdibod, a Maruti car bearing registration No. MP/04/J/4227 came there and stopped in front of their vehicle. Six miscreants alighted from that Maruti car and surrounded the complainant's car. Ultimately, three miscreants by complainant's Ford car had gone towards Bhilai-Durg road and four miscreants captured the complainant and took him towards Bilaspur road in that Maruti car. Complainant's partner Gyanchand Agrawal (PW-9) received the information by 10 pm on the very same day that the complainant has not reached his house at Amrawati. Soon after Gyanchand Agrawal received telephonic calls in his mobile No. 98271-47701 from mobile number 98271-93568 and also from 98271-95415 demanding Rs.10,00,000/- as ransom at the place between Shivnath River and Anjora. Gyanchand Agrawal told the telephone caller that he is coming along with the said ransom in his vehicle No. MP/24/H/4995. He also intimated the alleged incident to his friend Manoj Agrawal. Then, Gyanchand Agrawal lodged the FIR Ex.P/8 on 19.03.2001 by 00:40 hours at Police Station, Durg. The police officials made a plan to nab the miscreants red-handed. Gyanchand Agrawal collected original notes of Rs.7880/- and bundled them with plain papers so as to give it 3 an appearance of Rs.10,00,000/-. Then police parties, Gyanchand Agrawal and Manoj Agrawal proceeded in accordance with action plan. 3. Gyanchand Agrawal and Manoj Agrawal reached near Anjora by 02 to 02:15 pm on his said car. The car of the complainant came near them and they handed over the bag containing cash to the miscreants. Soon after, one police party comprising of CSP, Ajad Shatru Bahadur Singh, TI Ravindra Uppadhyay, SI Mohd Ismail Khan, Head Constables Chintamani, Rukhman Raman Singh, Dayashankar Pandey, Constables Puran Lal Sinha, Satyanarya Pathak, Amrit Lal Jaiswal reached near Changori-Birejhar road and chased the complainant's car. After the encounter, they found the three miscreants were present in the said Maruti car namely Subhash Singh, Sokh @ Sukhbindar Singh and present appellant/Satish Chandrakar. During the grappling, the miscreant Sokh @ Sukhbindar Singh received a bullet injury. S.H.O. Ravindra Upadhdhyay seized one automatic spring knife, one mobile phone bearing SIM No. 98271-93598, Rs. 2243.50/- from the miscreant Subhash Singh vide Ex.P/21. He also recorded memorandum statement (Ex.P/11) of Subhash Singh. He seized one country made pistol, one empty cartridge from Sokh @ Sukhbindar Singh vide Ex.P/20. He also seized one green bag containing Rs.7850/-, one live cartridge from the appellant/accused Satish Chandrakar vide Ex.P/22. S.I. Jagdish Uikey seized one Ford make car and some other articles from the spot vide Ex.P/19 and also seized empty cartridges, one knife and three welding rods from the said Ford car vide Ex.P/18. 4 4. Another police party proceeded on Raipur-Bilaspur road and near village Charoda, they saw the said Maruti car and surrounded it. In that Maruti car they found four miscreants and the complainant. One miscreant, Sanjay Mohle fled away from the spot. S.I., S.P. Shukla recovered the complainant from the miscreant Anil Panda vide recovery memo Ex. P/3. He also seized a country made pistol, two live cartridges and other 15 articles from Anil Panda vide Ex.P/4. He seized a mobile phone from the miscreant Parwez Kuraishi vide Ex.P/5. He seized STD computer slip (Ex.P/6A) from Rahmad Khan vide Ex.P/6. Sanction for the prosecution under the Arms Act was obtained from District Magistrate, Durg vide Ex. P/17. A test identification parade was conducted vide Ex.P/1. Sokh @ Sukhbhindar Singh died soon due to the bullet injury. 5. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against seven accused namely appellant/Satish Chandrakar, Parwez Kuraishi, Ashok Singh, Sanjay @ Sanju, Anil Panda, Subhash Singh and Sanjay Mohle. Out of these, two accused Sanjay Mohle and Anil Panda were declared absconded. During the trial and before the framing of charge, accused Subhash Singh died. In first round of trial, accused Satish Chandrakar, Parwez Kuraishi, Ashok Singh and Sanjay @ Sanju faced the trial. The trial Court acquitted the accused Ashok Singh, Parwez Kuraishi, and Sanjay @ Sanju from the charge under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code and accused Ashok Singh under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. The trial Court also acquitted above mentioned 5 all the four accused from Section 365 of the IPC. The trial Court only convicted the present appellant/Satish Chandrakar under Section 364A read with Section 34 IPC. 6. Accused Anil Panda subsequently appeared before the trial Court on 23.06.2004 and the second round of trial began against him. Charges under Sections 364A/34, 365/34 IPC and under Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act were framed against him. He abjured the allegations and faced the trial. 7. To bring home the charges, the prosecution re-examined PW/1- Satyanarayan, PW/4-Kaushal, PW/5-Budhram Verma, PW/6-Rahmat Khan, PW/7-S.P. Shukla, PW/8-Manoj Agrawal, PW/10-Mohd. Ismail Khan, PW/11-Mahendra Pal, PW/12-Ravindra Upadhdhyay, and examined PW/15-Jagdish Uikey, PW/16-Amrit Lal Jaiswal, PW/17- Rukhman Raman Singh, PW/18- Dayashankar Pandey. However, present appellant did not examine any person in his defence. 8. After completion of trial, trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph -1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that there is no clinching evidence available on record on the basis of which conviction of the appellant may be formed. The evidence which has been recorded in absence of the appellant could not be read against him. The prosecution has failed to make out any case against the appellant. In 6 the test identification parade (Ex P-1), Dr. Girdhari Lal Bajaj (PW-13) & Chandi Ram (PW-14) failed to identify any accused. PW-9/Gyanchand Agrawal or any other witness has not stated anything about receiving any call or any demand of ransom from any accused. Rakam Firauti Panchnama (Exhibit P-10) was allegedly prepared in front of PW-9 Gyanchand Agrawal, however, this witness has not stated anything about providing any such money or preparing any such panchnama like Exhibit P10. The Panchnama Ex-P/10 bears two witnesses, i.e, PW-11 Mahendra Pal and PW-8 Manoj Agrawal, however, Manoj Agrawal has not stated anything about any Panchnama and Mahendra Pal has clearly stated that he has no knowledge about Panchnama Ex. P/10 and the signature was made on the instruction of the concerned S.H.O. The Ford car no. MH-27 H 0990, from which accused/Satish Chandrakar was alleged to have been recovered, was seized from village Changorikhar vide Exhibit P-19. However, both witnesses Ishwari Deshmukh and Chiman Das have not been examined. The alleged seizure of knife, bag containing money and cartridges from the present appellant/accused vide Exhibit P-22 has not been proved by the witnesses PW-11/Mahendra Pal and PW-16/Amrit Lal. PW-11/Mahendra Pal and PW-16/Amrit Lal have not stated anything about any seizure from the appellant-accused. Ex.P-9/Rakam Shinakti Panchnama said to have been made in the presence of PW-11/Mahendra Pal and PW-8/Manoj Agrawal, however, PW-11 has denied any cash being identified in his presence whereas PW-8 has not 7 stated anything about any such identification vide Ex. P-9. As per Exhibit P-9, the recovered cash was identified by PW-9/Gyanchand Agrawal whereas this witness has not stated anything about any such recovery or identification of cash. PW-10/Sub-Inspector Mohd. Smile Khan, who allegedly apprehended accused persons from the Ford car has not stated anywhere that present appellant/accused Satish Chandrakar was found inside that car. The alleged recovery of PW-13 Dr. Girdharilal Bajaj vide Ex. P-3 does not state the place from where the abducted person was recovered. No evidence of any bullet marks on any vehicle despite allegation of several rounds fired between police and accused persons. The trial Court has convicted the appellant/accused for offence under Section 364-A read with 34 of I.P.C. on the mere assumption that he was present in the Ford car alongwith other accused persons. There is no material/evidence that PW-13/Dr. Girdharilal Bajaj was abducted by the present appellant/accused Satish Chandrakar. There is no evidence that any demand for ransom was made by the accused Satish Chandrakar. The person who allegedly provided the ransom money of Rs.7850/- to police i.e. PW-9/Gyanchand Agrawal has not stated anything about providing any such money or identifying any such money after recovery. The alleged recovery of the bag containing cash from the appellant- accused vide Ex.P-22 has not been proved by any independent witness. The accused Anil Panda, from whom PW-13/Dr. Girdharilal was recovered, has been acquitted by the Division Bench of this Court 8 vide judgment dated 22.09.2017 passed in CR.A. No. 68/2005. The present appellant Satish Chandrakar has already been acquitted in another case arising out of the same incident registered at P.S. Pulgaon, Distt. Durg (C.G.) for offences under Section 307/34 of IPC and Section 25/27 of Arms Act, vide judgment dated 31.10.2003 passed in S.T. No. 261/2002. As such, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant deserves to be set-aside. Learned Counsel places reliance upon the decision of this Court passed in CRA No.1343/2021 (Ravishankar versus State of Chhattisgarh) as well as decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which reads as under: 1. Ravi Dhingra versus State of Haryana, 2023 (6) SCC 76. 2. Neeraj Sharma versus State of Chhattisgarh, 2024 (3) SCC 125. 3. Shaik Ahmed versus State of Telangana, 2021 (9) SCC 59. 4. William Stephen versus State of Tamil Nadu & Anr, 2024 (5) SCC 259. 10. On the other hand, learned State Counsel submits that the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant after considering all the aspect of the case, therefore, the impugned judgment does not call for any interference. 11.Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record placed on record including the impugned judgment. 12. In Md. Faizan Ahmad @ Kalu v. State of Bihar {2013(1) LRC 82 (SC)} the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that if a demand for 9 ransom is made, the police should trace the calls and identify the caller and failure to do so cannot be substituted by other modes because the criminal courts recognize only legally admissible evidence and not far- fetched conjectures and surmises. If a criminal court allows its mind to be swayed by the gravity of offence and proceeds to hand out punishment on that basis, in the absence of any credible evidence, it would be doing great violence to basic tenets of criminal jurisprudence. 13. In Dharam Vir v. State {2016 (5) LRC 260 (Del), the High Court of Delhi has observed that the appellant has not been identified as in his examination-in-chief, the victim stated that third person was not present in the Court. Even on cross-examination by APP, the sole witness said “Aisa sa hi tha”. Then the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt. 14. In Rajbir v. State {2015 (8) LRC 261 (Del), the High Court of Delhi has laid down that the contradictions which do not go to the root of the matter, cannot dent the case of the prosecution but in case, evidence is incredible and cannot be accepted by test of prudence, then it may create a dent in the prosecution version. Material contradictions in testimonies of victim, his wife, his son, and further the manner of arrest of appellants, telephone calls regarding ransom having not been mentioned by wife of victim either in DD or in the FIR, no reference having been made of one of accused with regard to his having spent four hours with the victim and wife of victim serving lunch to them on the date of her husband's disappearance, the conviction is not made out. 10 15. In Surinder v. state of Haryana {2014(2) LRC 410 (P&H)} the High Court of Panjab and Haryana held that the failure of prosecution to prove that pistol and cartridge recovered from the appellant were kept intact till it was got tested. The witness who allegedly got pistol tested, has nowhere stated that he has produced the same before the armourer to get it tested. At the time of alleged recovery, no distinctive mark was put on the pistol and cartridge. Evidence is totally missing as to in whose possession the pistol and cartridge remained before the pistol was got tested and produced in Court. Benefit of doubt was therefore extended to appellant. 16. PW/7-Sub Inspector S.P. Shukla did not state how he reached near the Maruti car as well as near to the second spot, i.e. village Charoda. In other words, that witness did not state clearly and strongly as per the prosecution story that allegedly during the search he reached near the Maruti car along with the police party. Moreover, this witness does not say about the three remaining accused. It is not mentioned in Ex.P/3 and Ex. P/4 that what was the actual place at village Charoda. Ex.P/3 is not signed by the accused Anil Panda. In Ex.P/4, it has not been mentioned that the pocket from which allegedly two live cartridges were seized, was of the shirt or the trouser. PW/7-S.P. Shukla states in para- 19 that this is true that it has not been mentioned in Ex.P/4 that any of the articles were packed and sealed. He himself does not state clearly and strongly that allegedly he has sealed one country made pistol and two live cartridges which were seized from the appellant. The 11 prosecution has failed to prove any report furnished by armourer who had examined the said pistol and cartridges. 17. PW/4-Kaushal, PW/5-Budhram do not state anything against the accused Anil Panda and do not support Ex. P/3 and Ex.P/4 and turned hostile. PW/12-Ravindra Upadhyay does not state during his re- examination in chief about the alleged seizure of Rs. 7850/- from the appellant/accused Satish Chandrakar. 18. Dr. Girdhari Lal Bajaj (PW-13) in his evidence has stated that no demand for money was made by the miscreants. Upon seeing the accused persons, namely Satish, Parvez, and Ashok, present before the Court, he (PW-13) deposed that he is unable to state with certainty whether the said accused persons were among the 5–6 miscreants, as he could not see or identify any of them. He further stated that the miscreants had taken him while keeping his head lowered, due to which, he was unable to see them. 19. The present appellant Satish Chandrakar has already been acquitted in another case arising out of the same incident registered at P.S. Pulgaon, Distt. Durg (C.G.) for offences under Section 307/34 of IPC and Section 25/27 of Arms Act, vide judgment dated 31.10.2003 passed in S.T. No. 261/2002. 20. As per prosecution, PW-13/Dr. Girdharilal was recovered from the possession of the accused Anil Panda, however, accused/Anil Panda has been acquitted by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 22.09.2017 passed in CR.A. No. 68/2005. Relevant para of said 12 judgment reads as under: “32. Looking to the above mentioned facts and circumstances, afoersaid judicial precedents, this Court finds that said statement of PW/7-S.P. Shukla, Ex.P/3 and Ex.P/4 are not natural, normal and simple. Thus this Court disbelieves said statement of PW/7-S.P. Shukla, Ex.P/3 and Ex.P/4. Therefore, the prosecution does not get any help from said statements of PW/17-Rukhman Raman Pratap Singh and PW/18-Dayashankar Pandey. 33. After appreciation of the evidence, this Court finds that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges against the accused-Anil Panda under Section 364A/34 IPC and under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act. Thus, the appeal is allowed and judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the appellant are hereby set aside. The accused Anil Panda is acquitted by giving benefit of doubt, from the charges under Section 364A/34 IPC and Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act.” 21. Perusal of the judgment dated 22.09.2017 shows that the Court has disbelieved the statement made by PW-7 as also the Ex.P/3 and Ex.P/4 and observed that these documents are not natural, normal and simple. The Court has also disbelieved the statement of PW-7 with regard to Ex.P/3 and Ex.P/4 and held that prosecution does not get any help from said statements of PW/17-Rukhman Raman Pratap Singh and PW/18- Dayashankar Pandey. 22. It is pertinent to mention here that there is no any specific material/evidence produced by the prosecution to prove/show that victim/PW-13/Dr. Girdharilal was abducted by the present appellant and 13 any demand of ransom has been made by him. Chandi Ram (PW-14) also failed to identify the present appellant and other accused persons. The alleged recovery of the bag containing cash from this appellant- accused vide Ex.P-22 has not been proved by any independent witness. Only the police witnesses have been made statement against the present appellant/accused. 23. Upon appreciation of the evidence and facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge/offence against the appellant -Satish Chandrakar under Section 364A/34 of IPC. 24. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 23.01.2004 is hereby set aside. Appellant is acquitted from the aforesaid charge/offence. 25. The appellant is on bail. The bail bond of the appellant stands discharged subject to the provisions contained in Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. Sd/- (Shri Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J.