9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Conviction and sentence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for murder. 2. Conviction and sentence under Section 364 of the IPC for kidnapping. 3. Conviction and sentence under Section 386 of the IPC for extortion. 4. Conviction and sentence under Section 201 of the IPC for causing the disappearance of evidence. 5. Conviction and sentence under Section 120-B of the IPC for criminal conspiracy. Detailed Analysis: 1. Conviction and Sentence under Section 302 IPC for Murder: The appellants were convicted under Section 302 IPC for the murder of Om Prakash. The prosecution alleged that the appellants conspired to extort Rs. 10,000 from Chauhan by kidnapping and murdering his son. The confession of appellant Ram Chandra, which was recorded on 10-10-1952, detailed the manner of the murder. However, the Supreme Court found the confession unreliable due to several reasons, including the improbability of the detailed account of the murder and the fact that the confession was recorded in jail without adequate reason. The Court noted, "It would be extremely unsafe to base a conviction for murder on the confession of the appellants Ram Chandra." Consequently, the conviction under Section 302 IPC was set aside. 2. Conviction and Sentence under Section 364 IPC for Kidnapping: The Court upheld the conviction under Section 364 IPC for kidnapping. The circumstantial evidence against appellant Ram Chandra included the handwriting on ransom letters and the possession of ransom money. The Court stated, "There is absolutely no reason why his very admissions in the various letters of which he has been found to be the author, should not be treated as clear evidence against him that he has obtained the custody of the boy by kidnapping." For appellant Ram Bharosey, the Court found sufficient evidence of his involvement in the conspiracy to kidnap, including his suspicious movements and possession of ransom money. 3. Conviction and Sentence under Section 386 IPC for Extortion: The conviction under Section 386 IPC for extortion was also upheld. The Court found that the ransom letters, written by Ram Chandra, clearly indicated an intent to extort money by threatening the life of Om Prakash. The Court noted, "The modus operandi disclosed in the ransom letters was clearly by putting his father in fright of the boy being murdered." For Ram Bharosey, the Court found that his actions and involvement in the conspiracy supported the conviction under Section 386 IPC. 4. Conviction and Sentence under Section 201 IPC for Causing Disappearance of Evidence: The conviction under Section 201 IPC for causing the disappearance of evidence was set aside. The Court found no tangible evidence, either direct or circumstantial, to support the fact that the murder had been committed. The Court stated, "There is no tangible evidence, either of a direct or of a circumstantial nature, in support of the fact that the murder has been committed." Consequently, the conviction under Section 201 IPC was not sustained. 5. Conviction and Sentence under Section 120-B IPC for Criminal Conspiracy: The Court upheld the conviction under Section 120-B IPC for criminal conspiracy. The evidence showed that both appellants conspired to kidnap and extort money from Chauhan. The Court stated, "Both the Courts have for good reasons, found that he along with the appellant Ram Chandra, is guilty of criminal conspiracy to commit the offences charged." The Court found sufficient evidence to support the finding of criminal conspiracy between the appellants. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the convictions and sentences under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 IPC and acquitted the appellants of these charges. However, the convictions and sentences under Sections 364 and 386 IPC, taken with Sections 120-B and 34 IPC, were upheld. The appeals were dismissed with the modification that the death sentence and the rigorous imprisonment for seven years were set aside.
|
