DESH DEEPAK KUMAR VIHANGAM@ DEEPAK KUMARversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR

886                       [2022]
               SUPREME COURT     16 S.C.R. 886
                              REPORTS                      [2022] 16 S.C.R.


A       DESH DEEPAK KUMAR VIHANGAM@ DEEPAK KUMAR
                                         v.
                            THE STATE OF BIHAR
                       (Criminal Appeal Nos. 673 of 2011)
B                               MARCH 08, 2022
            [SANJIV KHANNA AND BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.]
             Penal Code, 1860: ss. 364A and 120B – Kidnapping for
      ranson and abduction – On facts, a doctor kidnapped for ransom
      and abducted along with his driver – Six persons convicted u/ss.
C
      364A and 120 B, and sentenced to life imprisonment, and ordered
      to pay fine – On appeal, held: Four of the accused were found
      present at the house and were involved in the kidnapping – They
      along with DK, on whose disclosure the amount was recovered from
      his tenanted premises, were identified by the victims – In view thereof,
D     and the appreciation of evidence, findings and the conclusion of
      the courts below as regards their conviction, is correct – As regards,
      K, the Inspector and the I.O. who had detained K with DK, themselves
      expressed doubt on involvement of K in the crime – Conclusive
      inference cannot be drawn of an agreement or that K had gone to
      the bus stand and had picked up DK in pursuance of a plan or
E
      scheme to accomplish an objective or even with the knowledge that
      DK was following the rickshaw because he had to collect ransom –
      Thus, on facts and depositions made by the IO and the Inspector, K,
      given benefit of doubt – As regards the two who were arrested on
      suspicion, the assertions do not meet and satisfy the standard of
F     proof to connect them with the kidnapping of the doctor – Further,
      there is not even an iota of evidence that any of the kidnappers
      were known beforehand to them – Family of the victim had received
      ransom calls even after the arrest of the two – Only after the arrest
      of DK that the location where the victim after the abduction had
      been kept was ascertained – Thus, the two also entitled to the benefit
G
      of doubt.
            Mohd. Khalid v. State of West Bengal (2002) 7 SCC
            334 : [2002] 2 Suppl. SCR 31; State of Kerala v. P.
            Sugathan & Another (2000) 8 SCC 203: [2000] 3 Suppl.
H
                                        886
 DESH DEEPAK KUMAR VIHANGAM@ DEEPAK KUMAR v.                              887
               THE STATE OF BIHAR

      SCR 409; Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad                 A
      v. K. Narayana Rao (2012) 9 SCC 512 : [2012] 9 SCR
      54 - relied on.
                       Case Law Reference
[2002] 2 Suppl. SCR 31          relied on                Para 14
                                                                          B
[2000] 3 Suppl. SCR 409         relied on                Para 14
[2012] 9 SCR 54                 relied on                Para 14
      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 673 of 2011.
                                                                          C
      From the Judgment and Order dated 20.05.2010 of the High Court
of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 618 of 2006.
      With
      Criminal Appeal Nos. 674-675, 683, 1714-1715 of 2011.
      Deepak Nargolkar, Sr. Adv., Ms. Prerna Singh, Shikhar Srivastava,   D
T. Mahipal, Shreeyash U. Lalit, Mahesh Kumar, Nikhilesh Kumar, Ms.
Devika Khanna, Vishal Sharma, Mrs. V. D. Khanna, Kripa Shankar
Prasad, Manu Shanker Mishra, Nishant Kumar, Nithyananda Muthy P,
Ms. Bhanu Prabha, Vivekanand Singh, Anirudh Ray, Advs. for the
Appellant.                                                                E
      Abhinav Mukerji, Ms. Pratishtha Vij, Ms. Bihu Sharma, Arshi C.
Shrivastava, Advs. for the Respondent.
      The following Judgment of the Court was delivered :
        1. Impugned judgment dated 20th May 2010 passed by the High       F
Court of Judicature at Patna dismissed the appeals preferred by Desh
Deepak Kumar Vihangam @ Deepak Kumar, Bimlesh Kumar Singh,
Madan Prasad Thathera, Kanhaiya Lal, Ramjee Prajapati and Abhay
Kumar @ Pappu, who have been convicted under Sections 364A and
120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘Penal Code’, in short). The
aforesaid 6 convicts were sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for Life.     G
Desh Deepak Kumar Vihangam was ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 7,00,000
(Rupees Seven lakh Only), while the rest of the convicts were ordered
to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees One Lakh Only) each.

                                                                          H
888            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2022] 16 S.C.R.


A            2. The impugned judgment by the High Court however acquits
      Santosh who was convicted by the trial court. The State has not preferred
      any appeal challenging the acquittal of Santosh. The impugned judgment
      has also convicted Pradeep Kumar Shrivastava, who had preferred a
      petition for special leave to appeal, which was dismissed on 22 nd October
      2010. Another co-convict, Upendra Kumar Singh, whose conviction was
B
      upheld by the High Court, has expired, and hence, his appeal has abated.
             3. The case relates to the kidnapping for ransom of Dr. Shashi
      Kumar Sinha (PW-3), abducted along with his driver Salauddin (PW-5)
      on 7TH February 2006 while travelling in a car from his residence at
      Station Road, Dehri, to his clinic at Tilouthu Village. Kiran Sinha (PW-
C     2), the wife of Dr. Shashi Kumar Sinha and Dr. Amitabh Sinha (PW-1),
      son of Dr. Shashi Kumar Sinha, have deposed that calls for ransom
      were made. Initially, an amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore
      Only) was demanded, but thereafter, the kidnappers had agreed to release
      the captives on payment of Rs. 12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Only).
D     Dr. Amitabh Sinha (PW-1) had deposed that he had paid a ransom of
      Rs. 12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Only) to Deepak Kumar at Ranchi
      on 24th February 2006. At that time, Dr. Amitabh Sinha (PW-1) did not
      know the name and identity of Deepak Kumar. He came to know about
      his identity when Deepak Kumar was arrested at Patna by the I.O.
      Yogesh Chandra (PW-8) and Inspector Krishna Kumar Singh @ K.K.
E     Singh (PW-4). Dr. Amitabh Sinha (PW-1) had visited Patna on 9th March
      2006 as the kidnappers had demanded a further sum of Rs.5,00,000/-
      (Rupees Five Lakh Only) as ransom. Deepak Kumar and Kanhaiya Lal
      were arrested at Patna on 10th March 2006. Inspector K.K. Singh (PW-
      4) and I.O. Yogesh Chandra (PW-8) have deposed that Deepak Kumar
F     had then made a disclosure statement whereupon the police along with
      Deepak Kumar and Kanhaiya Lal had proceeded to Village Bar, District
      Aurangabad, Bihar. Dr. Shashi Kumar Sinha (PW-3) and Salauddin (PW-
      5) were rescued in the intervening night of 10th and 11th March from the
      house of Upendra Kumar Sinha situated at Village Bar. Bimlesh Kumar
      Singh, Madan Prasad Thathera, Pradip Kumar Shrivastav and Upendra
G     Kumar Sinha were present at the house and were involved in the
      kidnapping of Dr. Shashi Kumar Sinha (PW-3) and Salauddin (PW-5).
      They were arrested. Dr. Shashi Kumar Sinha (PW-3) and Salauddin
      (PW-5), the victims, identified Deepak Kumar, Bimlesh Kumar, Madan
      Prasad Thathera, Pradeep Kumar and Upendra Kumar in the court. On
H     the basis of the disclosure statement made by Deepak Kumar, Rs.
 DESH DEEPAK KUMAR VIHANGAM@ DEEPAK KUMAR v.                                 889
               THE STATE OF BIHAR

6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Only) were recovered from his tenanted          A
premises at Patna. Some of the currency notes recovered bore the
signatures of Dr. Amitabh Sinha (PW-1).
      4. In view of the aforesaid facts, and the appreciation of evidence,
we hold that the conviction of Bimlesh Kumar, Madan Prasad Thathera
and Deepak Kumar is correct. We are in agreement with the findings           B
and conclusions of the trial court and the High Court in this regard.
       5. We will now be adverting to the case of Kanhaiya Lal. Dr.
Amitabh Sinha (PW-1) has deposed that on 9th March 2006 he received
a phone call from the kidnapper who asked him to come to Patna with
Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Only). He was told to reach Gaighat         C
with the money after taking the route from Hanuman Mandir road to
Gandhi Maidan via Frazer Road and to proceed towards Engineering
Mod, and from the said Mod to reach Gaighat. He thereupon had
contacted the police who made arrangements to track down the culprits
and apprehend them. He reached Patna on 9th March 2006 and spent
the night at Arya Samaj Hotel. On 10th March 2006 at 6.30 A.M. he            D
received a call from the kidnappers and was asked to reach Gaighat
with the money on a rickshaw as per the route specified. He hired a
cycle rickshaw and followed the route as per the instructions of the
kidnappers. On the way he crossed the gate of Patna Medical College
and reached the Engineering College at about 8.00 A.M. From there, he        E
reached Gaighat at about 8.30-8.45 A.M.
       6. After 3 to 4 hours Dr. Amitabh Sinha (PW-1) received a phone
call from Inspector K.K. Singh (PW-4) who asked the former to reach
Kotwali Police Station. On reaching the police station, Dr. Amitabh Sinha
(PW-1) identified Deepak Kumar, as the person who had collected ransom       F
money of Rs. 12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakh Only) from him at Ranchi
on 24th February 2006. Dr. Amitabh Sinha (PW-1) did not recognise
Kanhaiya Lal, who was also present as he had been detained by the
police.
        7. Inspector K.K. Singh who has deposed as PW-4, has referred        G
to his conversation with Dr. Amitabh Sinha (PW-1) in which Dr. Amitabh
Sinha (PW-1) stated that he had been asked to pay ransom money of
Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Only) at Patna in the morning of 10th
March 2006. Accordingly, on the directions of the Superintendent of
Police, a special task force was formed, and he was assigned the duty to
lead the raiding party. Inspector K.K. Singh (PW-4) knew the route           H
890            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2022] 16 S.C.R.


A     which Dr. Amitabh Sinha (PW-1) was required to follow. At about 6.00-
      6.30 A.M., Inspector K.K. Singh (PW-4) was informed by Dr. Amitabh
      Sinha (PW-1) that the culprits had asked him to take a rickshaw and
      was required to travel around Mahavir Mandir Station. This information
      was shared by Inspector K.K. Singh (PW-4) with other police officers,
      including I.O. Yogesh Chandra (PW-8). The Police Team decided to
B
      follow Dr. Amitabh Sinha (PW-1) in civil dress. As planned, they followed
      the rickshaw in which Dr. Amitabh Sinha (PW-1) was sitting. Dr. Amitabh
      Sinha (PW-1) crossed Frazer Road via Gandhi Maidan and reached
      Ashok Rajpath. At that time, the police team noticed that one black
      Yamaha motorcycle was following the said rickshaw. The driver of the
C     motorcycle was not wearing a helmet, whereas the pillion rider was
      wearing a helmet. They kept a watch on this motorcycle and thereupon
      stopped the motorcycle near the Patna Medical College. Kanhaiya Lal
      was driving the motorcycle, and Deepak Kumar was the pillion rider.
      Thereupon, both of them were taken to Peer Vihar Police Station.
      However, the police team continued to follow Dr. Amitabh Sinha (PW-
D
      1) as he moved forward towards Gaighat. No one came to collect the
      money in the entire route. Upon interrogation of Deepak Kumar, they
      came to know of the location where Dr. Shashi Kumar Sinha (PW-3),
      after the kidnapping, had been detained. The same night the police team
      proceeded to Village Bar, District Aurangabad, Patna, as noted above,
E     had rescued Dr. Shashi Kumar Sinha (PW-3) and Salaudin [PW-5].
           8. I.O. Yogesh Chandra (PW-8) similarly deposed that he was a
      member of the team which was following Dr. Amitabh Sinha (PW-1),
      who was sitting on the cycle rickshaw and had thereupon detained
      Kanhaiya Lal and Deepak Kumar near Patna Medical College.
F           9. From the aforesaid depositions of Inspector K.K. Singh (PW-
      4) and I.O. Yogesh Chandra (PW-8), we accept that Kanhaiya Lal along
      with Deepak Kumar, were detained when they were travelling on the
      motorcycle at or around Patna Medical College at about 8 A.M. on 10th
      March 2006.
G            10. Noticeably, Kanhaiya Lal, in his statement under Section 313
      of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Criminal Code’, for short)
      was candid to accept that he had picked up Deepak Kumar from the
      bus stand as he had been called there to take him to the Patna Medical
      College. He had stated that he was in the business of running coaching
H     classes and had nothing to do with the incident.
 DESH DEEPAK KUMAR VIHANGAM@ DEEPAK KUMAR v.                                  891
               THE STATE OF BIHAR

       11. On the question of the involvement of Kanhaiya Lal in the          A
episode of kidnapping and whether his conviction is justified under Section
120B of the Penal Code, we would like to refer to the cross-examinations
of Inspector K. K. Singh [PW-4] and the I.O. Yogesh Chandra. (PW-
8). K.K Singh (PW-4) in the cross-examination had accepted that :-
      “36. Kanhiya lal never gave any statement regarding this case. I        B
      cannot say that whether he was involved in this case or not. I do
      not investigate mobile phone of Kanhiya Lal. IO sir might took it
      only he can tell.”
        Inspector K. K. Singh [PW-4] while agreeing that Kanhaiya Lal
was brought to Village Bar, but thereafter accepted that “Kanhaiya Lal        C
never spoke regarding the whole incident”. Inspector K. K. Singh [PW-
4] also agreed that Kanhaiya Lal had not given any statement “regarding
either len-den (money transaction) or abduction” during his interrogation.
Kanhaiya Lal had told them that he had been asked by Deepak Kumar
to take him to Patna Medical College on his motorcycle. Kanhaiya Lal
did not point out anything regarding abduction of Dr. Shashi Kumar Sinha      D
(PW-3) and had no criminal history prior to the said date.
     12. Relevant portions of the cross-examination of I.O. Yogesh
Chandra (PW-8) reads as under;
      “42. Whether there is any hand of Kanhaiya Lal Gupta in this            E
      case or not I have not inquired from anyone. The mobile No. of
      Mr. Kanhaiya Lal is 9334315014. From Kanhaiya Lal’s mobile
      nothing more has been called then calling motor cycle for going
      and bringing the motor cycle is there and nothing else. It has been
      confirmed from the printout.
                                                                              F
      43. In making Kanhaiya Lal as accused there was a talk with SP
      Sahib. It was an Oral talk and in the diary I have not noted down.
      Written report which has been submitted in PS Madanpur has not
      been written the facts that Kanhaiya Lal Gupta was brought in
      the village of War. In my front K.K. Singh had not said in his
      statement that Kanhaiya Lal Gupta was also brought to the village-      G
      War. Desh Deepak has not pointed out that Kanhaiya Lal had
      knowledge about this incident. He only pointed out regarding asking
      for motor cycle and what was the motto, was not pointed out. In
      Para 142 of the case diary accused Desh Deepak has not pointed
      any thing about Kanhaiya Lal. Kanhaiya Lal had pointed out only
                                                                              H
892               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2022] 16 S.C.R.


A              the facts that he has been caught with Desh Deepak, that is why
               charge sheet has been submitted against him on the basis of
               suspicion. It is circumstantial evidence.”
              13. Dr. Amitabh Sinha (PW-1), in his cross-examination, had
      testified that he did not see the police team apprehending Deepak Kumar
B     and Kanhaiya Lal when travelling on the motorcycle near the Patna
      Medical College. Dr. Amitabh Sinha (PW-1) did not recognize Kanhaiya
      Lal. As per the prosecution case, Kanhaiya Lal is a resident of Patna. It
      is also not the case of the prosecution that Kanhaiya Lal was involved in
      the act of kidnapping, which had taken place on 7th February 2006 at
      Tilouthu Village, District Dehri-On-Sone, Bihar. Kanhaiya Lal was not
C     in touch with any of the kidnappers including Deepak Kumar, from 7th
      February 2006 until the morning of 10th March 2006.
             14. At this stage it is imperative to discuss the settled position of
      law with regard to the ingredients and the standard of proof to be achieved
      by the prosecution for conviction under section 120-B of the Penal Code.
D     In Mohd. Khalid v. State of West Bengal1 this Court had elucidated the
      elements of criminal conspiracy which are reproduced as under:
               “The elements of a criminal conspiracy have been stated to be:
               (a) an object to be accomplished,
E              (b) a plan or scheme embodying means to accomplish that object,
               (c) an agreement or understanding between two or more of the
               accused persons whereby, they become definitely committed to
               cooperate for the accomplishment of the object by the means
               embodied in the agreement, or by any effectual means, and d) in
F              the jurisdiction where the statute required an overt act. The
               essence of a criminal conspiracy is the unlawful combination and
               ordinarily the offence is complete when the combination is
               framed.”
            Elaborating upon the standard of proof the prosecution has to
G     meet in establishing criminal conspiracy, this Court in State of Kerala v.
      P. Sugathan & Another2 held as under;
               “We are aware of the fact that direct independent evidence of
               criminal conspiracy is generally not available and its existence is
      1
          (2002) 7 SCC 334
      2
H         (2000) 8 SCC 203
    DESH DEEPAK KUMAR VIHANGAM@ DEEPAK KUMAR v.                                  893
                  THE STATE OF BIHAR

         a matter of inference. The inferences are normally deduced from         A
         acts of parties in pursuance of purpose in common between the
         conspirators. This Court in V.C. Shukla v. State (Delhi Admn.)
         (1980) 2 SCC 665 held that to prove criminal conspiracy there
         must be evidence direct or circumstantial to show that there was
         an agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence.
                                                                                 B
         There must be a meeting of minds resulting in ultimate decision
         taken by the conspirators regarding the commission of an offence
         and where the factum of conspiracy is sought to be inferred from
         circumstances, the prosecution has to show that the circumstances
         giving rise to a conclusive or irresistible inference of an agreement
         between the two or more persons to commit an offence. As in all         C
         other criminal offences, the prosecution has to discharge its onus
         of proving the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
         The circumstances in a case, when taken together on their face
         value, should indicate the meeting of the minds between the
         conspirators for the intended object of committing an illegal act or
                                                                                 D
         an act which is not illegal, by illegal means. A few bits here and a
         few bits there on which the prosecution relies cannot be held to
         be adequate for connecting the accused with the commission of
         the crime of criminal conspiracy. It has to be shown that all means
         adopted and illegal acts done were in furtherance of the object of
         conspiracy hatched. The circumstances relied for the purposes           E
         of drawing an inference should be prior in time than the actual
         commission of the offence in furtherance of the alleged
         conspiracy.”
      This Court in Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad v. K.
Narayana Rao3 held;                                                              F
         “The ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are that
         there should be an agreement between the persons who are alleged
         to conspire and the said agreement should be for doing of an
         illegal act or for doing, by illegal means, an act which by itself
         may not be illegal. In other words, the essence of criminal             G
         conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act and such an
         agreement can be proved either by direct evidence or by
         circumstantial evidence or by both and in a matter of common
         experience that direct evidence to prove conspiracy is rarely
3
    (2012) 9 SCC 512                                                             H
894            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 16 S.C.R.


A           available. Accordingly, the circumstances proved before and after
            the occurrence have to be considered to decide about the
            complicity of the accused. Even if some acts are proved to have
            been committed, it must be clear that they were so committed in
            pursuance of an agreement made between the accused persons
            who were parties to the alleged conspiracy. Inferences from such
B
            proved circumstances regarding the guilt may be drawn only when
            such circumstances are incapable of any other reasonable
            explanation. In other words, an offence of conspiracy cannot be
            deemed to have been established on mere suspicion and surmises
            or inference which are not supported by cogent and acceptable
C           evidence.”
             15. When we reflect on the evidence on record in the light of
      aforementioned dictum, it is apparent that Inspector K.K. Singh (PW-4)
      and the I.O. Yogesh Chandra (PW-8) who had detained Kanhaiya Lal
      with Deepak Kumar, have themselves expressed doubt on involvement
D     of Kanhaiya Lal in the crime in question. While we do not doubt that
      Kanhaiya Lal was taken into custody while he was driving the motorcycle
      with Deepak Kumar on the pillion behind him, the version given by
      Kanhaiya Lal, in his statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Code,
      that he had picked up Deepak Kumar from the bus stand as he had been
      called there to take him to Patna Medical College gets corroboration
E     from the police team itself. Therefore, we cannot draw conclusive and
      irresistible inference of an agreement or that Kanhaiya Lal had gone to
      the bus stand and had picked up Deepak Kumar in pursuance of a plan
      or scheme to accomplish an objective or even with the knowledge that
      Deepak Kumar was following the rickshaw because he had to collect
F     ransom. It is palpable that Inspector K.K. Singh (PW-4) and the I.O.
      Yogesh Chandra (PW-8) have somewhat corroborated Kanhaiya Lal’s
      version that he was to drop Deepak Kumar at Patna Medical Collage.
      Dr. Amitabh Sinha (PW-1) while on the rickshaw had gone past Patna
      Medical Collage and was not over taken or stopped by Kanhaiya Lal.
G           16. In the aforesaid background, the settled position of law, factual
      matrix and the depositions made by I.O. Yogesh Chandra (PW-8) and
      Inspector K.K. Singh (PW-4)], we are inclined to give the benefit of
      doubt to Kanhaiya Lal.
           17. As far as Ramjee Prajapati and his son Abhay Kumar are
H     concerned, it is an accepted position that Ramjee Prajapati was a
 DESH DEEPAK KUMAR VIHANGAM@ DEEPAK KUMAR v.                                895
               THE STATE OF BIHAR

compounder who also had a medical store outside the clinic of Dr. Shashi    A
Kumar Sinha (PW-3) at Tilouthu. Their involvement is pleaded on the
following assertaions (i) Ramjee Prajapeeti had contacted the family of
Dr. Shashi Kumar Sinha (PW-3) when Dr. Shashi Kumar Sinha (PW-3)
had not reached the clinic and had raised suspicion that he may have
been kidnapped; (ii) Ramjee Prajapati and Abhay Kumar, through their
                                                                            B
landline and mobile phones, had contacted and spoke to telephone/mobile
number 9431028412, which was the telephone/mobile number of Dr.
Shashi Kumar Sinha (PW-3); and (iii) Dr. Shashi Kumar Sinha (PW-3),
has deposed that he heard the kidnappers take different names like Lalji
Mishra, Bindeshwary Choudhary, Taiyab Ansari, Kalicharan etc., and
also, Ramjee Prajapati and Abhay Kumar for money. He had also stated        C
that the accused had told him that Santosh (who has been acquitted by
the High Court) and Abhay Kumar had committed the occurrence.
        We do not think that the aforesaid assertions when analyzed would
meet and satisfy the standard of proof to connect Ramjee Prajapati and
Abhay Kumar with the kidnapping of Dr. Shashi Kumar Sinha (PW-3).           D
First two assertions are neutral and can well be read as evidence that
shows Ramjee Prajapati and Abhay Kumar’s concern for Dr. Shashi
Kumar Sinha (PW-3). Once they had got in touch with the kidnappers
on the telephone, the kidnappers knew their names. The third factum
therefore is somewhat debatable. It is not the case of the prosecution
that Ramjee Prajapati and Abhay Kumar were known or in touch with           E
the kidnappers on or before 7th February 2006. There is not even an iota
of evidence that any of the kidnappers were known beforehand to Ramjee
Prajapati and Abhay Kumar. The calls were made to the mobile/telephone
number of Dr. Shashi Kumar Sinha (PW-3) which Ramjee Prajapati
obviously had. Telephone calls were not made to the kidnappers on their     F
personal telephone numbers. Both of them were arrested on suspicion
on 6 March, 2006. It is not the case of the police that Ramjee Prajapati
and Abhay Kumar gave any lead or information with regard to the ‘other’
kidnappers. The family of Dr. Shashi Kumar Sinha (PW-3) had received
ransom calls even after the arrest of Ramjee Prajapati and Abhay Kumar.
It is only after Deepak Kumar was arrested that the location where Dr.      G
Shashi Kumar Sinha (PW-3) after the abduction had been kept was
ascertained. Therefore, Ramjee Prajapati and Abhay Kumar are also
entitled to the benefit of doubt.

                                                                            H
896              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2022] 16 S.C.R.


A            18. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals and affirm the convictions
      and sentences of Desh Deepak Kumar Vihangam @ Deepak Kumar,
      Bimlesh Kumar Singh and Madan Prasad Thathera. The appeals
      preferred by Kanhaiya Lal, Ramjee Prajapati and Abhay Kumar @ Pappu
      are allowed, and their convictions under Section 364A and 120B of the
      Penal Code are set aside. Bail bonds of Kanhaiya Lal, Ramjee Prajapati
B
      and Abhay Kumar stand cancelled. Deepak Kumar, who is enlarged on
      bail, shall surrender to the concerned authorities within 10 days from
      today to serve the sentence of Imprisonment for life and pay the fine of
      Rs. 7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakh Only) with stipulations for recovery.
      If he does not surrender, the police would take immediate steps to detain
C     and arrest him as per law.
             19. All pending applications stand disposed of.

      Nidhi Jain                                                  Appeals dismissed.
      (Assisted by : Shivani Pundir, LCRA)

D




E




F




G




H