The third accused in this case, called Ravi Kumar Dwivedi, was acquitted by the trial court. As per the prosecution case the body was set on fire, but before setting the body on fire, the complainant/victim’s mobile phone and cash of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) were looted from him, by the two accused Neeraj Sharma and Ashwani Kumar Yadav. The doctor PW-4
(Jai Kumar Chunarkar) who had examined the complainant/victim at Doundilohara hospital, notes the following burn injuries in his report (Ex.P/09). Statement of the 5 victim (PW-6) was recorded before a Nayabsil Tehdar on 04.01.2013 at 12 noon. As it was a Sessions triable offence, it was committed to Sessions from where it went to First Additional Sessions Judge Balod, who ultimately framed charges on 15.04.2013 under Sections 364A, 6 307, 120B, 392, 397 and in the alternative 394 of IPC against all the accused persons i.e., Neeraj Sharma, Ashwani Kumar Yadav and Ravi Kumar Dwivedi. While issuing notice in the Special Leave Petition on 30.11.2018 this Court in the case of Neeraj Sharma in fact issued a limited notice to his conviction under section 364-A while confirming his conviction under sections 307 read with 120B along with sections 392 read with 397 of IPC.
In fact, this doubt was also in the mind of this Court, at least in the case of Neeraj Sharma, as this Court has issued a limited notice as only to the applicability of 364-A in the case. I had not seen Youganthar College so I went along with them in motor cycle to see the college.” He also said, “In the night of 3 at 1.30 hrs there is a plant towards Balod I do not know its name, near to that, Neeraj Sharma and Ashwini Yadav first strangulated me with clutch wire I had stopped my breath they thought that me dead, then set me fire by pouring petrol.”
Apart from this, the veracity of the incident is further established by the deposition of Santosh Shukla (PW-1), who was the first person in the Bhilai Plant who saw the complainant in a burnt condition and who inquired from him as to what led to his injuries and was informed that these injuries were caused by his friends, and his money was also looted by them. Praneet Sharma (PW-5), is the father of the complainant who stated that 9 on the midnight of 03.01.2013, he was informed by Aman Singh, that his son Arijit Sharma is not well and his son has been hospitalized at Sector -9 Hospital, Bhilai and when he reached the hospital, he saw his son in burnt condition and in severe pain. Past midnight, he requested Neeraj Sharma to stop the vehicle, as he wanted to ease himself and when the complainant was talking to Neeraj Sharma, the other accused Ashwani Kumar Yadav, came from behind and tied clutch wire around his neck and then both Ashwani Kumar Yadav and Neeraj Sharma made an attempt to strangulate him with the clutch wire.
He also heard Neeraj Sharma and Ashwani Kumar fetching petrol from their motorcycle. He had examined the injured complainant in the early hours of morning on 03.01.2013.
His observation is as follows : “On examination, I found that both legs of the patient were deeply burnt from top to bottom and some blisters were therein stomach and both hands, which were burnt up to 40 to 45 percentage. Registration Sheed (Bedhead Ticket) of indoor patient regarding admission in our hospital is Exhibit P-14, which is in 166 pages, wherein on each pages at part A to A bears my signature.” The other person who had met the injured while he had escaped was PW-1 i.e. Police personnel Station House Officer Sahu had come to investigate the incident and had prepared Nazari map (Exhibit P-01) of the incident, part A to A of which bears my signature. When the evidence of an injured eye-witness is to be appreciated, the under-noted legal principles enunciated by the Courts are required to be kept in mind: (a) The presence of an injured eye- witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition. (e) If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence.
—Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction, and threatens to cause death or hurt to such person, or by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or 17 hurt, or causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or [any foreign State or international inter-governmental organisation or] any other person to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom, shall be punishable with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.” Applying the above to the case at hand, we find that the need to bring in Section 364-A IPC arose initially because of the increasing incidence of kidnapping and abduction for ransom.
Although, according to the prosecution the number has been traced to Ashwani Kumar Yadav, one of the two accused here, but no evidence to this effect, as required under Section 165 of the Evidence Act, has been placed before the Court. State of Telangana (2021) 9 SCC 59 has held that in order to make out an offence under Section 364 A, three conditions must be met: A) There should be a kidnapping or abduction of a person or a person is to be kept in detention after such kidnapping or abduction; B) There is a threat to cause death or hurt to such a person or the accused by their conduct give rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt C) Or cause death or hurt to such a person in order to compel the Government or any foreign state or intergovernmental organisation or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom. For making out a case under Section 364-A, the first condition i.e., kidnapping or abduction must be coupled with either the second or the third condition as held by this Court in Shaik Ahmed (supra).
— Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person in order that such person may be murdered or may be so disposed of as to be put in danger of being murdered, shall be punished with [imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” However, in order to come under the ambit of Section 364A, something more than abduction is required, which is demand of ransom. The only deposition in Court regarding demand of ransom has come as a bald statement by Praneet Sharma (PW-5) who is the father of the complainant that on 03.01.2013 when he was in the hospital one Ravi Kumar Dwivedi demanded Rs.8,00,000/- as ransom.
As far as the evidence of PW-6 is concerned, he makes no mention of any demand or ransom in the court as a prosecution witness. Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant.— Statements, written or verbal, of relevant facts made by a person who is dead, or who cannot be found, or who has become incapable of giving evidence, or whose attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay or expense which under the circumstances of the case appears to the Court unreasonable, are themselves relevant facts in the following cases:— (1) When it relates to cause of death.
—
When the statement was made by such person in the ordinary course of business, and in particular when it consists of any entry or memorandum made by him in books kept in the ordinary course of business, or in the discharge of professional duty; or of an acknowledgment written or signed by him of the receipt of money, goods, securities or property of any kind; or of a document used in commerce written or signed by him; or of the date of a letter or other document usually dated, written or signed by him. — When the statement gives the opinion of any such person, as to the existence of any public right or custom or matter of public or general interest, of the existence of which, if it existed, he would have been likely to be aware, and when such statement was made before any controversy as to such right, custom or matter had arisen. This supplementary statement given to the investigating officer on 21.03.2013 is nothing more than a statement under Section 162 of Criminal Procedure Code (see: Gentela Vijayavardhan Rao and Another v. State of Maharashtra (2002) 10 SCC 56 ; State of U.P.
Case Title: NEERAJ SHARMA Vs. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH (2024 INSC 6)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001420-001420 / 2019
