RANJEET KUMAR RAM@ RANJEET KUMAR DAS versus STATE OF BIHAR
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 36, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Ratio
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 36 
A 
RANJEET KUMAR RAM@ RANJEET KUMAR DAS 
B 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1831 of2011) 
MAY 15, 2015 
[T. 5. THAKUR AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: ss.364A, 302134, 1208, 201 -
c Kidnapping and murder- Prosecution case was that five year 
old son of PW-8 was kidnapped for ransom and later 
murdered - The victim child was playing with his sister PW-
2 in the street when A-5 and A-3 lured him with chocolates 
and took him away-After 5-6 days, A-1 and A-4 told PW8 
D that his son would come back if he would pay money-After 
3 months, PW8 received phone call demanding a ransom -
Kidnappers informed PW8 to come with money with his 
neighbours A-1 and A-4 - PW8 wrapped the ransom money 
in plastic bag and kept it in gunny bag under the carrier of 
E his cycle and accompanied A-1, A-4 and A-2- They reached 
the place as instructed by kidnappers and A-3 and A-5 came 
out of a hut and snatched the money from under the caffier 
of the cycle and informed PW8 that his son would be back by 
evening - However the boy did not return - Investigating 
F officer conducted raid and made arrests - Based on 
statement of A-1, cuffency notes were recovered- Based on 
statements of A-3, A-4 and A-5, 10 went to the place where 
dead body of victim boy was recovered- Trial court convicted 
G A-1, A-3, A-4 & A-5 for kidnapping and murder and A-2 for 
kidnapping - High Court acquitted A-2 however upheld 
conviction of A-1, A-3, A-4, A-5 - On appeals, held: The
testimony of the PW-2, sole child witness was reliable and 
consistent- Evidence of PW-8 corroborated the evidence of 
H PW-2 - Evidence of PW-8 established that the victim boy 
36
RANJEET KUMAR RAM@ RANJEET KUMAR DAS v. 
37 
STATE OF BIHAR 
was last seen in the company of A-3 and A-5 - Conduct of A-
A 
3 and A-5 of pulling money kept in gunny bag from PW-B's 
cycle showed that they had knowledge about money which 
only indicated prior meeting of minds of accused -
Concurrent finding of courts below that A-3 and A-5 were guilty 
for kidnapping and murder not interfered with -As regards, B 
A-1, he was brother-in-Jaw of A-3- His conduct in not showing 
any reaction to his brother-in-law's act of kidnapping was not 
in consonance with natural human conduct - This conduct 
of A-1 coupled with the evidence that he has been persuading 
PWB to pay the money to kidnappers to get back his son Jed C 
to the irresistible inference that A-1 shared the common 
intention with A-3 and A-5 in kidnapping the child and 
committing murder - Recovery of currency note from the 
house of A-1 was yet another link strengthening his complicity 0 
in the commission of offence -As regards A-4, neither any 
recovery was made from him nor any incriminating evidence 
was available against him - Case against A-4 not proved 
beyond reasonable doubt and his conviction set aside. 
Dismissing the appeals filed by A-1, A-3 and A-5 E 
and allowing the appeal filed by A-4, the Court 
HELD: 1. Key witness PW2 aged seven years and 
sister of the deceased boy identified A-3 during the test 
identification parade and in the court she identified A-5 F 
as the person who offered chocolate to
her and to her 
brother and took him away. lnspite of searching cross-
examination, PW2 remained consistent throughout. 
Before she was examined as a witness in the court during 
trial, her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was G 
recorded by the Judicial Magistrate (PW13). In his 
evidence, PW13 has stated that he tested the 
understanding of witness PW2 and after being satisfied 
about her understanding, recorded her statement under H
38 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 
A Section 164 Cr.P.C. When PW2 was examined as a 
witness in the court during trial, the trial judge had also 
put preliminary questions to the child witness PW2 and 
satisfied that she was capable of understanding the 
questions put to her. PW2 though sole witness, by 
B concurrent findings courts below found her evidence 
unassailable. [Paras 12 and 14] [46-H; 47-A-C; 48-A-D] 
2. In the test identification parade, PW8 identified 
A-5 and A-3 as the persons who took away ransom 
C money from the carrier of his cycle. The evidence of PW8 
amply corroborated the evidence of PW2 as to the 
complicity of A-5 and A-3 in the offence. Evidence of 
PW2 coupled with the evidence of PW8 clearly 
established that the accused A-5 and A-3 kidnapped 
D PW8's son and PW8 informant paid Rs. 1,05,000/- to them 
as ransom amount. On the evidence of PW2, courts 
below rightly recorded concurrent findings that the 
prosecution has established that deceased boy was last 
seen alive in the company of accused A-5 and A-3. There 
E is no explanation forthcoming from the accused which 
is a strong militating circumstance against the accused 
A-5 and A-3 which indicates that they are responsible 
for the crime. This is further fortified by the evidence of 
PW8 who stated that the accused Nos.3 and 5 had 
F snatched the money kept in the carrier of his cycle, when 
he was near the hut of A-3. [para 15, 16] [48-G-H; 49-A-D] 
3. Based on the statement of A-5
and A-3, 
investigating officer- PW12 went to a place where the 
G body of a deceased boy was recovered. Identification 
of clothes recovered from the body of deceased boy 
beneath the pulia and identification of the photographs 
and knowledge of A-3 and as to the place of dead body 
H is a strong militating circumstance against A-5 and A-3.
RANJEET KUMAR RAM@ RANJEET KUMAR DAS v. 
39 
STATE OF BIHAR 
Though the statement recorded from A-5 and A-3 did A 
not lead to any recovery as admissible under Section 27 
of the Evidence Act, their statement led to the disclosure 
of the details of the dead body and registration of F.l.R. 
If no statement was recorded from the accused, place of 
the dead body of deceased boy would have remained B 
unknown. [Paras 17 and 19] [49-E, G; 50-E-F] 
4. Ideally based on the statement recorded from 
the accused, the investigating officer should have taken 
the accused to the alleged place of occurrence which C 
would have led to the disclosure of place of occurrence 
and omission to do so, is only a lapse in the investigation. 
In criminal trials even ifthe investigation is defective, the 
rest of the evidence must be scrutinized independently 
of the impact of the defects in the investigation otherwise D 
the criminal trial will plummet to the level of the 
investigation. Corpus delecti in some cases may not 
be possible to be traced or recovered. If the recovery of 
a dead body is an absolute- necessity to convict an 
accused, in many cases the culprits would go E 
unpunished as the accused would manage to see that 
the dead body is destroyed or not recovered. Any lapse 
in recovery of the dead body or missing link qua the dead 
body will not enure to the benefit of the accused. The F 
courts below recorded cogent and concurrent reasoning 
thatA-5 and A-3, for kidnapping the boy
for ransom and 
committed murder and the conviction of A-5 and A-3 
under Sections 364A, 302 and 201 IPC and the sentence 
of imprisonment imposed on them cannot be interfered G 
with. [Paras 20-23] [50-H; 51-A, C, E-H; 52-A] 
5. Conviction qua A-1 and A-4: A·3 is the brother-
in-law of A-1. Had there been no complicity of A-1 in the 
commission of the offence, on knowing for the first time H
40 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 
A that his brother- in-law A-3 was involved in the 
kidnapping, A-1 must have been greatly shocked and 
he must have questioned his brother-in-law A-3 as to 
why he had committed such gruesome act of kidnapping 
his neighbour's son? But A-1 had not reacted to the 
B situation and he remained quiet. His conduct in not 
showing any reaction is not in consonance with natural 
human conduct. -This conduct of A-1 coupled with the 
evidence that he has been persuading PWB to pay the 
money to kidnappers to get back his son leads to the 
C irresistible inference that A-1 shared the common 
intention with A-3 and A-5 in kidnapping the child 'and 
committing murder. Recovery of currency note from the 
house of A-1 is yet another link strengthening his 
0 
complicity in the commission of offence. Considering the 
act of A-1 and the proved circumstances, courts below 
rightly held that A-1 had the common intention of 
kidnapping and committing murder of the boy. [Paras 
25, 26 and 28] [53-8-G; 54-F] 
E 
6. As far as A4 is concerned, he is also a vegetable 
vendor in the same market. Though the circumstances 
that he has also persuaded PWB to pay the ransom 
amount to kidnappers and also accompanied PWB to pay 
F the ransom amount to the kidnappers, A-4 might have 
accompanied PWB as a bonafide helper. Neither any 
recovery was made from A-4 nor anyincriminating 
evidence is available against him. Though there may be 
strong suspicion about
his involvement in the 
G commission of the offence, suspicion however strong it 
may be, cannot take the place of proof. The case against 
A-4 is not proved beyond reasonable doubt and his 
conviction is liable to be set aside. [Para 29] [54-G-H; 
55-A-B] 
H 
State of M.P vs. Mansingh & Ors. (2003) 10 SCC 414:
·-
RANJEET KUMAR RAM @ RANJEET KUMAR DAS v. 
41 
STATE OF BIHAR 
2003 (2) Suppl. SCR 460 ; Sheo Shankar Singh vs. 
A 
State of Jharkhand and Anr. (2011) 3 SCC 654: 2011 
(4) SCR 312; Munuiappan & Ors. vs. State of Tamil 
Nadu (2010) 9 SCC 567: 2010 (10) SCR 262 - relied 
on. 
Case Law Reference 
2003 (2) Suppl. SCR 460 relied on. 
Para 21 
2011 (4) SCR 312 
relied on. 
Para 21 
2010 (10) SCR 262 
relied on. 
Para 21 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal 
Appeal No. 1831 of2011. 
B 
c 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.10.2010 of the D 
Division Bench of the High Court at Patna in CR.APP (DB) 
No. 268 of 2008. 
WITH 
CrlA. Nos. 1820-1821and1817 of2013 
Anupam Lal Das, Anirudh Singh, Shankar Divate, 
Sushma Manchanda for the Appellant. 
E 
Anuj, Shubhra Rai, Gopal Singh, Abhinav Mukerji, F 
Purnima Krishna for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. These appeals are directed 
against the judgment dated 11.10.2010 passed by the Patna G 
High Court in Criminal Appeals (DB) No.268/2008, 357/2008, 
451/2008, No.156/2008 and Death Reference No.6/2008, in 
and by which, the High Court dismissed the appeals filed by 
the accused persons confirming the verdict of conviction on 
the charge of murder of five years oJd boy Vicky and dismissed H
42 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 7 S.C.R. 
A the death reference by converting the death sentence of 
Chintoo Singh (A-5) into life imprisonment. 
2. On 27.02.2006, Sunil Kumar Singh-PW8, a 
vegetable vendor in Paswan Chowk, lodged a complaint 
B stating that his son Vicky aged five years was playing near 
PW8's vegetable shop and Rubi Kumari aged seven years 
sister of the victim boy Vicky was also playing with him. At that 
time two unknown persons [later identified as Chintoo Singh 
(A-5) and Birendra Bhagat (A-3)] offered chocolates to Vicky 
C and other children and took away Vicky saying that they would 
come back and drop the boy; but the boy Vicky did not come 
back. On the above complaint on 28.02.2006, a case was 
registered as P.S. Case No.105/2006 at Hazipur Town 
(Industrial Area), Police Station, Vaishali. lnspite of search, 
D the missing boy could not be traced. After 5-6 days passed, 
Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1) and Sanjay (A-4), who were also 
vegetable vendors in the same market i.e. at Paswan Chowk, 
told PW8 that his son would come back if he would pay money. 
Nearly after three months of the incident, on 23.06.2006, PW8 
E received a phone call and the kidnappers demanded a ransom 
of four lakh rupees for return of his son; but PW8 expressed 
his helplessness to meet the demand, and the demand was 
reduced to two lakh rupees. Another telephone call was 
F received by PW8 on 1.07 .2006 and the final amount of ransom 
was fixed for Rs.1,05,000/-. On
3.07.2006, PW8 received 
another call from the kidnappers and PW8 informed them that 
he has arranged the ransom money and PW8 was asked to 
bring the money at New Gandak Bridge ahead of Line Hotel 
G of Bachcha Babu at Sonepur. When PW8 expressed fear in 
coming alone with money, he was instructed by the kidnappers 
to come with his neighbours Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1) and 
Sanjay (A-4). 
H 
3. In order to pay the ransom money, PW8 had
RANJEET KUMAR RAM@ RANJEET KUMAR DAS v. 
43 
STATE OF BIHAR [R. BANUMATHI, J.] 
withdrawn Rs.80,000/- from his Savings Bank account with A 
Bank of India at Rajendra Chowk, Hazipur and PW-8 arranged 
balance money from his own savings and borrowings from his 
father-in-law. On 4.07.2006, PW8 wrapped the ransom amount 
in a plastic bag and kept it in a gunny bag under the carrier of 
his cycle and PW8 accompanied by Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-
B 
1) and San jay (A-4) and Sanjeet (A-2) proceeded to the place 
as instructed by the kidnappers. When they reached the New 
Gandak Bridge, Sanjeet (A-2) got down from PW8's cycle and 
went inside a hut on the left side of the road and PW8 followed 
him. At that time two persons came out and pulled away the C 
money from the carrier of PW8's cycle. Sanjeet (A-2) informed 
PW8 that his brother-in-law-Birendra Bhagat (A-3) lives in that 
hut and PW8 was informed that his son would be returned by 
evening. Even after payment of the money, the boy was not 0 
returned. To inquire about the boy, PW8 went to the hut and 
learnt from the local people that Birendra Bhagat (A-3) is a 
criminal and the other person was identified as Chintoo Singh 
(A-5). On 16.08.2006, PW8 informed the investigating officer-
Reeta Kumari (PW12), the names of the accused persons and E 
also about the demand and payment of money to the 
kidnappers. 
4. Investigating Officer (PW-12) conducted a raid at 
Sonepur and arrested Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1) and Sanjeet F 
(A-2) and
recorded their statement. Based on the statement 
of Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1 ), investigating officer recovered 
a currency note of five hundred rupee containing the name of 
Sunil Kumar Singh-PW8, written in green ink in the handwriting 
of PW8, from the house of Ranjeet Kumar Ram(A-1 ), which G 
is recorded in the seizure list (Ex.18). Thereafter, the accused 
persons Sanjay (A-4), Birendra Bhagat (A-3) and Chintoo 
Singh (A-5) were also arrested and their statements were 
recorded. Investigating Officer-PW12, on the basis of 
statements went to Fakuli Out-Post and learnt about recovery H
44 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 
A of dead body of a boy aged 4-5 years near the culvert of 
Bhagwanpur village wherein (Fakuli OP) P.S. Case No.128/ 
06 dated 22.04.2006 under Sections 302, 201 and 34 IPC 
was registered. PW12 obtained from Fakuli police the seizure 
list relating to recovery of vest and half pant of deceased boy 
B and his photograph. From the photograph shown to PW8, he 
identified the dead body of child as well as clothes, as that of 
Vicky. After the completion of the investigation, PW-12 filed 
the chargesheet against five accused under Sections 364A, 
302/34, 1208 and 201 IPC. 
c 
5. To bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution 
has examined fourteen witnesses and exhibited documents 
and material objects. When questioned under Section 313 
Cr.P.C., the accused denied incriminating evidence and 
D circumstances put against them. Defence has examined seven 
defence witnesses. 
6. Vide judgment dated 24/28.01.2008, the First 
Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hazipur convicted the 
E accused Chintoo Singh (A-5) and Birendra Bhagat (A-3) under 
Section 364A IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous 
imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.10,000/-. For his conviction 
under Sections 302/34 IPC, Chintoo Singh (A-5) was awarded 
death sentence. Sanjeet (A-2), Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1) and 
F Sanjay (A-4) were convicted under Section 364A/120B IPC 
and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life 
and were imposed a fine of
rupees Rs.10,000/- each with 
default clause. Further, Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1 ), San jay (A-
4) and Birendra Bhagat (A-3) V>fere convicted under Section 
G 302/34 IPC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous 
imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.10,000/- each with default 
clause. The sentences imposed on Birendra Bhagat (A-3), 
Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1) and San jay (A-4) were ordered to 
H run concurrently.
RANJEET KUMAR RAM@ RANJEET KUMAR DAS v. 
45 
STATE OF BIHAR [R. BANUMATHI, J.] 
7. Being aggrieved by the verdict of conviction, accused A 
filed Criminal Appeals No. 268/2008, 357 /2008, 451 /2008 and 
156/2008 in the High Court of Patna. For confirmation of death 
sentence awarded to Chintoo Singh(A-5), State filed Death 
Reference Case No.6/2008. The High Court vide common 
impugned judgment dated 11.10.2010, dismissed the appeals B 
filed by the accused persons and thereby confirmed the 
conviction and sentence imposed on accused A-1, A-3 to A-5. 
The High Court converted the death sentence awarded to 
Chintoo Singh (A-5) as life imprisonment. Accepting the 
defence plea of alibi, the High Court acquitted 2nd accused-
C 
Sanjeet in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.249/2008. In these 
appeals, appellants assail the correctness of the verdict of the 
conviction and sentence imposed on them. 
8. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that D 
Rubi Kumari (PW2) aged seven years, daughter of PW8, the. 
key witness has not implicated Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1) and 
in her statement she has identified only Birendra Bhagat (A-3) 
and PW2 being a child witness her sole testimony cannot form 
the basis for conviction. It was submitted that Sunil Kumar E 
Singh (PW8) on his own has requested Ranjeet Kumar 
Ram(A-1) and Sanjay (A-4) to accompany him to pay the 
alleged ransom and merely because A-1, A-2 and A-4 
accompanied PW8, they are being falsely implicated. Learned 
F 
counsel for
Chintoo Singh (A-5) submitted that in the test 
identification parade, PW2 has not identified Chintoo Singh 
(A-5) and her identification of A-5 in the open court is unreliable 
and without proper appreciation of the flaws in the prosecution 
case, courts below erred in convicting the accused. 
G 
9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the 
respondent-State contended that the sole eye-witness-Rubi 
Kumari (PW2) has satisfactorily identified accused-Birendra 
Bhagat (A-3) in the test identification parade and while she H
46 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015] 7 S.C.R. 
A was examined in the court she has identified Chintoo Singh 
(A-5). It was submitted that PW8 has clearly deposed that 
Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1), Sanjay (A-4) in conspiracy with 
Birendra Bhagat (A-3), Chintoo Singh (A-5), induced him to 
pay ransom money, even when no such demand was made, 
B which clearly shows their involvement in the commission of 
the offence. It was submitted that the kidnappers asked PW8 
to bring Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1 ), San jay (A-4) and that they 
accompanied PW8 to pay the money which proves the 
complicity of accused Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1) and Sanjay 
C (A-4) in the commission of the offence and upon proper 
appreciation of evidence, courts below rightly convicted the 
appellants for the offence under Sections 302/34, 364A, 120B 
and 201 IPC and the concurrent findings recorded by the courts 
0 
below warrant no interference. 
10. We have considered the rival contentions and 
perused the impugned judgment, evidence and material on 
record. 
E 
11. Sunil Kumar Singh (PW8) and his wife Nilam Devi 
(PW6) are vegetable vendors in Paswan Chowk Market, 
Hazipur. Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1) and Sanjeet (A-2) [since 
acquitted] are brothers who are also vegetable vendors in the 
same market having shop situated nearby the shop of PW8 
F and Birendra Bhagat (A-3) is their brother-in-law. In her 
evidence, PW6 stated that first accused and his brother Sanjeet 
were jealo1,1_s of them as PW8 had good business.
Though 
jealousy is suggested as a motive, but it appears that the 
commission of murder of victim boy Vicky is mainly due to 
G kidnapping for ransom. 
12. Key witness PW2-Rubi Kumari is aged seven years 
and is the sister of the deceased boy Vicky. PW2 deposed 
that on the date of incident i.e. 27.02.2006, PW2 was playing 
H around the place where PW8 was selling the vegetables. PW2
RANJEET KUMAR RAM@ RANJEET KUMAR DAS v. 
47 
STATE OF BIHAR [R. BANUMATHI, J.] 
stated that two persons came 011 a motor cycle ann gave A 
chocolate to the children including PW8's son Vicky anu . nade 
Vicky to sit on the tank of the motor cycle and took him away. 
PW2 stated that the man who took her brother-Vicky told that 
he would come back and drop her brother. Rubi Kumari (PW2) 
identified Birendra Bhagat (A-3) during the test identification B 
parade and in the court she identifi~d Chintoo Singh (A-5) as 
the person who offered chocolate to her and to her brother 
and took him away. lnspite of searching cross-examin~on, 
PW2 remained consistent throughout her cross-examination. c 
13. On behalf of Chintoo Singh (A-5), it was contended 
that PW2's testimony is not reliable as she has not identified 
Chintoo Singh during the test identification parade and that 
PW2's identification of Chintoo Singh (A-5) in the court was 
not reliable. Identification of the accused by the witness soon D 
after the/armer's arrest is of course important because it lends 
assurance to the prosecution, in addition to corroboration of 
the evidence of the witnesses. As noticed earlier, in the open 
court during the trial, Rubi Kumari (PW2) identified Chintoo 
Singh (A-5) and she has not id"entified him in the test E 
identification parade conducted in the prison. Ordinarily, courts 
do not give much credence to the identification made in the 
court for the first time; but the identification
of the accused for 
the first time in court is permissible in law. But the said princif)le F 
has to be applied in the facts and circumstances of each case. 
While PW2 was examined in the court, trial court which had 
the opportunity of seeing and observing demeanour of PW2 
found her version identifying Chintoo Singh (A-5) trustworthy 
and we see no reason to take a different view. 
G 
14. At the time of occurrence, as well, while deposing in 
Court, Rubi Kumari (PW2) was aged only seven years. 
Evidence of the child witness and·it& credibility would depend 
upon the circumstances of each case. Only precaution which H 
th~ court has to bear in mind while assessing the evidence of
48 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 
A a child witness is that the witness must be a reliable one. 
Before PW2 was examined as a witness in the court during 
trial, her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded 
by the Judicial Magistrate (PW13). In his evidence PW13 has 
stated that he tested the understanding of witness Rubi Kumari 
B (PW2) and after being satisfied about her understanding, 
recorded her statement under Section 164 Cr. P. C. When PW2 
was examined as a witness in the court during trial, the trial 
judge had also put preliminary questions to the child witness 
Rubi Kumari (PW2) and satisfied that she was capable of 
C understanding the questions put to her. When the trial court 
has ascertained the discernment of PW2 and has formed an 
opinion that PW2-Rubi Kumari is competent to testify and then 
recorded her evidence, we see no reason to discredit PW2's 
0 testimony. PW2 though sole witness, by concurrent findings 
courts below found her evidence unassailable and we find no 
ground to take a different view. 
15. On 4. 7 .2006, PW8 wrapped the ransom amount in a 
plastic bag and kept it in a gunny bag under the carrier of his 
E cycle and accompanied by Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A 1 ), Sanjeet 
(A-2) and Sanjay (A-4), PW8 went to pay the ransom amount 
to the kidnappers. When they reached New Gandak Bridge, 
accused-Sanjeet (A-2) got down from the cycle and went inside 
F the hut on the left side of the road and PW8 followed him. At 
that time, two
persons came out of the hut and took away the 
money from the carrier of PW8's cycle. In the test identification 
parade, PW8 identified Chintoo Singh (A-5) and Birendra 
Bhagat (A-3) as the persons who took away ransom money 
G from the carrier of his cycle. The evidence of PW8 amply 
corroborates the evidence of PW2 as to the complicity of 
Chintoo Singh (A-5) and Birendra Bhagat (A-3) in the offence. 
16. Evidence of Rubi Kumari (PW2) coupled with the 
H evidence of Sunil Kumar Singh (PW8) clearly establishes
RANJEET KUMAR RAM@ RANJEET KUMAR DAS v. 
49 
STATE OF BIHAR [R. BANUMATHI, J.] 
that the accused Chintoo Singh (A-5) and Birendra Bhagat A 
(A-3) kidnapped PW8's son Vicky and PW8 informant paid 
Rs.1.05,000/- to them as ransom amount. On the evidence of 
PW2, courts below rightly recorded concurrent findings that 
the prosecution has established that. deceased boy Vicky was 
last seen alive in the company of accused Chintoo Singh (A-
B 
5) and Birendra Bhagat (A-3). It is for the accused to explain 
how and when they parted company of the deceased child 
Vicky. Absolutely, there is no explanation forthcoming _from 
the accused which is a strong militating circumstance against 
the accused Chintoo Singh (A-5) and Birendra Bhagat (A-3) C 
which indicates that they are responsible for the crime. This is 
further fortified by the evidence of PW8 who stated that the 
accused Nos.3 and 5 had snatched the money kept in the 
carrier of his cycle, when he was nearthe hut of Birendra Bhagat 0 
(A-3). 
17. Based on the statement of Chintoo Singh (A-5) and 
Birendra Bhagat (A-3), investigating officer- Reeta Kumari 
(PW12) went to Fakuli O.P. and learnt that the body of a 
deceased boy was recovered on 22.4.2006 beneath the pulia E 
in between Bhagwanpur-Bahadurpurroad for which F.l.R. in 
(Fakuli OP) P.S. Case No.128/2006 dated 22.4.2006 under 
Sections 302, 201 IPC read with Section 34 IPC was 
registered. PW12 received the clothes (material Ext.11 ), 
F 
photographs of the deceased
boy and PW8 has identified the 
said clothes (material Ext.11) as that of his son and also 
photographs (Ext.3 & 3/1) as of deceased boy Vicky. 
Identification of clothes recovered from the body of deceased 
boy beneath the pulia and identification of the photographs G 
and knowledge of accused No.3 and as to the place of dead 
body is a strong militating circumstance against the accused 
Chintoo Singh (A-5) and Birendra Bhagat (A-3). 
18. Learned counsel for the accused Chintoo Singh(A-
H
50 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 
A 5) and Birendra Bhagat (A-3) contended that the alleged 
disclosure statement of the accused is hit by Section 25 of the 
Evidence Act which makes the disclosure statement 
inadmissible and the statement recorded from the accused 
did not lead to disclosure of any fact so as to make it 
B admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and there is 
nothing to connect the accused with the dead body of a boy 
recovered from beneath the pu/ia in connection with (Fakuli 
OP) P.S. Case No.128/2006. It was submitted that the link to 
connect the accused with the murder of deceased boy Vicky 
C is missing and that the confession statement of accused 
Chintoo 
Singh (A-5) and Birendra Bhagat (A-3) recorded 
by police is not admissible in evidence which was not kept in 
view by the courts below. 
D 
19. So far as the recovery of dead body of boy under the 
culvert between Bhagwanpur and Bahadarpur road is 
concerned, as noticed earlier, a F.l.R. was registered in (Fakuli 
OP) P.S. Case No.128/2006 dated 22.4.2006 under Sections 
302, 201 IPC read with Stj!ption 34 IPC. Though the statement 
E recorded from the accused Chintoo Singh (A-5) and Birendra 
Bhagat (A-3) did not lead to any recovery as admissible under 
Section 27 of the Evidence Act, their statement led to the 
disclosure of the details of the dead body and registration of 
F F.l.R. in (Fakuli OP) P.S. Case No.128/2006. If no statement 
was recorded from the accused, place of
the dead body of 
deceased boy would have remained unknown. 
20. So far as the contention regarding the inadmissibility 
of the statement recorded from the accused Chintoo Singh 
G (A-5) and Birendra Bhagat (A-3), of course, the statement did 
not lead to the disclosure of any fact as admissible under 
Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Ideally based on the statement 
"' 
recorded from the accused, the investigating officer should 
H have taken the accused to the alleged place of occurrence
RANJEET KUMAR RAM@ RANJEET KUMAR DAS v. 
51 
STATE OF BIHAR [R. BANUMATHI, J.] 
which would have led to the disclosure of place of occurrence A 
and omission to do so, is only a lapse in the investigation. 
Even if it is accepted that there was deficiency in investigation 
that cannot be a ground to doubt the prosecution version which 
is otherwise cogent and credible. 
B 
21. It is well settled that in criminal trials even if the 
investigation is defective, the rest of the evidence must be 
scrutinized independently of the impact of the defects in the 
investigation otherwise the criminal trial will plummet' M the 
level of the investigation. Criminal trials should not be made C 
casualties for any lapses committed by the 
investigating 
officer. In State of M. P vs. Mansingh & Ors., (2003) 10 SCC 
414, it was held that even if there was deficiencies in the 
investigation that cannot be a ground for discrediting the 
prosecution version. The same view was reiterated in Sheo D 
Shankar Singh vs. State of Jharkhand And Anr., (2011) 3 SCC 
654 and C. Muniappan & Ors. vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2010) 
9 sec 567. 
22. We are not impressed with the arguments advanced E 
on behalf of the accused Chintoo Singh (A-5) and Birendra 
Bhagat (A-3) that there is nothing to connect the accused with 
the body found under the bridge. Corpus de/ecti in some cases 
may not be possible to be traced or recovered. If the recovery 
of a dead body is an absolute necessity to convict an accused, 
F
in many cases the culprits would go unpunished as the accused 
would manage to see that the dead body is destroyed or not 
recovered. Any lapse in recovery of the dead body or missing 
link qua the dead body will not enure to the benefit of the 
accused. 
G 
23. Upon appreciation of evidence of PW2 and PW8, 
the courts below recorded cogent and concurrent reasonings 
that Chintoo Singh (A-5) and Birendra Bhagat (A-3), for 
kidnapping the boy Vicky for ransom and committed murder H
52 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 
A and the conviction of Chintoo Singh (A-5) and Birendra Bhagat 
(A-3) under Sections 364A, 302 and 201 IPC and the sentence 
of imprisonment imposed on them cannot be interfered with. 
24. Conviction qua Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1) and 
B Sanjay (A-4): PW6-Nilam Devi and PW8-Sunil Kumar Singh, 
mother and father respectively of the deceased boy Vicky are 
the vegetable vendors in the Paswan Chowk Market. Ranjeet 
Kumar Ram (A-1) and San jay (A-4) were also selling 
vegetables in the same market. In her evidence, PW6 stated 
C that Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1) and San jay (Ac4) were jealous 
of PW6 and PW8 as in their vegetable shops they were having 
good business. PW8 in his evidence stated that he was 
persuaded by Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1) and Sanjay (A-4) to 
pay the ransom money and get back his son even when no 
D such demand was made by the kidnappers viz., Chintoo Singh 
(A-5) and Birendra Bhagat (A-3). After number of phone calls, 
demand of ransom was reduced to Rs.1,05,000/- and PW8 
was asked to deliver the amount. PW8 categorically stated 
that when he expressed fear of going alone, kidnappers told 
E him over phone to bring his neighbours Ranjeet Kumar Ram 
(A-1) and Sanjay (A-4). PW8 withdrew Rs.80,000/- from his 
Savings Bank account with Bank of India at Rajendra Chowk 
and Ext.5 is the Savings Bank passbook of PW8. PW8 took 
F loan of Rs.20,000/- from his father-in-law Sakal Mahto and 
PW8 was already having Rs.5,000/-. In
his evidence, PW8 
stated that the amount he arranged was of denomination of 
five hundred rupees and in some of the currency notes, he has 
signed. PW8 stated that he wrapped the ransom amount in a 
G plastic bag and kept in a gunny bag in the carrier of his cycle 
and when they reached New Gandak Bridge, Sanjeet (A-2) 
got down from his cycle and went to the hut on the left side of 
the road and when PW8 followed him, Chintoo Singh (A-5) 
and Birendra Bhagat (A-3) pulled away money kept in the gunny 
H bag from PW8's cycle. Only accused Ranjeet Kumar Ram
RANJEET KUMAR RAM @ RANJEET KUMAR DAS v. 
53 
STATE OF BIHAR [R. BANUMATHI, J.] 
(A-1) and Sanjay (A-4) had the knowledge that the money was A 
kept in the gunny bag in the carrier of cycle. From the conduct 
of A-5 and A-3, it appeared as if they were already having 
knowledge about money being kept in the gunny bag in the 
carrier of the cycle of PW8 which only indicates prior meeting 
of minds of the accused. 
B 
25. Birendra Bhagat (A-3) is the brother-in-law of Ranjeet 
Kumar Ram (A-1 ). Had there been no complicity of Ranjeet 
Kumar Ram (A-1) in the commission of the offence, on knowing 
for the first time that his brother-in-law Birendra Bhagat (A-3) C 
was involved in the kidnapping, Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1) must 
have been greatly shocked and he must have questioned his 
brother-in-law Birendra Bhagat (A-3) as to why he had 
committed such gruesome act of kidnapping his neighbour's 
son? But Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1) had not reacted to the D 
situation and he remained quiet. His conduct in not showing 
any reaction to his brother-in-law's act of kidnapping of PW8's 
son, which is not in consonance with natural human conduct. 
This conduct of first accused coupled with the evidence that 
he has been persuading PW8 to pay the money to kidnappers E 
to get back his son leads to the irresistible inference that 
accused Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1) shared the common 
intention with accused Nos.3 and 5 in kidnapping the child 
and committing murder. 
F 
26. Recovery of five
hundred rupee currency note (Ex.1) 
from the house of Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1) is yet another link 
strengthening his complicity in the commission of offence. 
Pursuant to the statement of accused Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-
1 ), currency note of Rs.500/- which contained signature of G 
PW8-Sunil Kumar Singh in green ink was seized from the 
house of first accused under Ext.1 seizure list (Ext.18). PW4-
Raj Banshi Devi, a neighbour had spoken about the recovery 
of Ext.1 currency note of Rs.500/-from the house of accused H
54 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 
A No.1 and PW8 had identified his signature on Ext.1 currency 
note. Recovery of a part of ransom amount from the house of 
Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A 1) is a determining link completing the 
chain of ci(cumstantial evidence against Ranjeet Kumar Ram 
B 
(A-1 ), pointing to his guilt. 
27. Defence plea of accused Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1) 
is that some time prior to the occurrence, there was an 
altercation between him and PW8 and at that time PW8-Sunil 
Kumar Singh stated.that he would falsely implicate Ranjeet in 
C a criminal case. To prove the defence plea, defence witnesses 
Baiju Sharma and Budhan Paswan were examined as DWs 4 
and 5. The defence plea that PW8 falsely implicated Ranjeet 
Kumar Ram (A-1) and his family members in the offence of 
kidnapping and murder of his son defies logic and rightly 
D rejected by the trial court as well by the High Court. 
28. Direct evidence of common intention is seldom 
available. Such common intention of the accused can only be 
inferred from the evidence and circumstances appearing from 
E proved facts of case. In furtherance of common intention, 
Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1) had been persuading PW8 to pay 
the ransom amount even before there was no such demand 
from the kidnappers viz., Chintoo Singh (A-5), Birendra Bhagat 
(A-3). Considering the act of Ranjeet Kumar Ram and the 
F proved circumstances, courts below rightly held that Ranjeet 
Kumar Ram had the common intention of kidnapping and
committing murder of the boy Vicky and the courts below rightly 
convicted Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-1) under Section 364A IPC 
and Sections 302/34 IPC. 
G 
29. As far as San jay Mahto (A4) is concerned, he is also 
a vegetable vendor in Paswan Chowk Market. Though the 
circumstances that he has also persuaded PW8 to pay the 
ransom amount to kidnappers and also accompanied PW8 
H to Sonepur to pay the ransom amount to the kidnappers, Sanjay

RANJEET KUMAR RAM @ RANJEET KUMAR:OAS v. 
55 
STATE OF BIHAR [R. BANUMATHI, J.] 
might have accompanied PW8 as a bonafide helper. Neither A 
any recovery was made from Sanjay nor any incriminating 
evidence is available against him. So far as Sanjay Mahto 
(A-4) is concerned, though there may be strong suspicion about 
his involvement in the commission of the offence, suspicion 
however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof. The B 
case against San jay (A-4) is not proved beyond reasonable 
doubt and his conviction is liable to be set aside. 
•( .l ~ ~ ~ 
30. Criminal Appeals No.1831/2011, 1817/2013 and 
1821/2013: These appeals filed by Ranjeet Kumar Ram (A-
C 
1), Chintoo Singh (A-5) and Birendra Bhagat (A-3) are 
dismissed. 
31. Criminal Appeal No.1820/2013: Conviction of 
Sanjay (A-4) is set aside and this appeal is allowed. He is D 
acquitted of the charges and he is ordered to be set at liberty 
forthwith if not required in any case. 
Devika Gujral 
Appeals disposed of. 
E 
. 
'")~ 
, . ..,