MOTILAL YADAVversusSTATE OF BIHAR

                    [2014] 13 S.C.R. 565


                      MOTILAL YADAV                                A
                               v.
                      STATE OF BIHAR
             (Criminal Appeal No. 2478of2014)                      B
                   NOVEMBER 25, 2014
   [VIKRAMAJIT SEN AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.)

     Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 364A/34 and 1208/364A -                c
Kidnapping of six year old boy for ransom - Conviction and
sentence of accused ulss. 364A/34 and 120B/364A by court
below - On appeal, held: Order pas.sed by the High Court
was not cryptic or without discussion of evidence on record -
On facts, nbt holding of test identification parade not fatal to   o
the prosecution case - Thus, order passed by High Court
upheld - Evidence.
     Dismissing the appeal, the Court
      HELD: It cannot be said that the impugned order is E
cryptic and without discussion of evidence on record.
The High Court in the impugned order discussed the
evidence on record as to how from the corroboration of
the statements of the witnesses the entire prosecution
story and the charge stood proved. The testimony of PW· F
3, father of the victim is natural as he explained in what
manner he reached place 'H', and he had enough time
to identify the accused who accompanied him to the
persons who took money from him whereafter the victim
was released. In view thereof, it cannot be said that not G
holding of test identification parade was fatal for the
prosecution. [Paras 10, 11, 14)(571-D·E; H; 572-A;
573-C]
                                                                   H
                              565
566        SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2014] 13 S.C.R.


A         Rama and others v. State of Rajasthan (2002) 4
          SCC 571; Badam Singh v. State of M.P (2003)
          12 SCC 792; Prasad alias Hari Prasad Acharya
          v. State of Karnataka (2009) 3 SCC 17 4: 2009
          (1) SCR 1089; Ram Ratan v. State of Rajasthan
B         (2010) 13 SCC 509; Kanan and others v. State of
          Kera/a (1979) 3 SCC 319; Ravi Kumar v. State
          of Rajasthan (2012) 9 SCC 284 : 2012 (10)
          SCR 229; R. Shaji v. State of Kera/a (2013) 14
          SCC 266: 2013 (3) SCR 1172; Ashok Debbarma
c         alias Achak Debbarma v. State of Tripura (2014)
          4 sec 747 - referred to.
                         Case Law Reference:

           (2002) 4 sec 571           referred to   Para 8
D
           (2003) 12 sec 792          referred to   Para 8

           2009 (1) SCR 1089          referred to   Para 8

           (201 o) 13 sec 509         referred to   Para 8
 E
           (1979) 3 sec 319           referred to   Para 10

           2012 (10) SCR 229          referred to   Para 11

           2013 (3) SCR 1172          referred to   Para 12
 F
           (2014) 4 sec 747           referred to   Para 14

          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal
      Appeal No. 24 78 of 2011.
G          From the Judgment and Order dated 05-11-2012 of the
      High Court of Patna in CRLA No. 208 of 2006.

          D.N. Goburdhan(AC), Prabal Bagchi, Abhishek
      Aggarwal, Advs. for the Appellant.
 H
           MOTILAL YADAV v. STATE OF BIHAR                    567


    Redreshwar Singh, Samir Ali Khan Advs. for the A
Respondent.

     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
     PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. 1. Leave granted.
                                                               B
       2. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against
judgment and order dated 5.11.2012, passed by the High Court
of Judicature at Patna, whereby the conviction of the accused-
 appellant Motilal Yadav recorded under Section 364A read
with Section 34 and Section 120B read with Section 364A C
 IPC by learned Additional Sessions Judge, ETC 111, Bhagalpur,
 in Sessions Case No. 1053 of 2003/Trial No. 12 of 2004, is
 affirmed. The accused-appellant, along with other co-accused,
 has been convicted and sentenced to impriso'nment for life
 and directed to pay tine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 364A read D
 with Section 34 IPC, and further sentenced to imprisonment
 for a period of two years under Section 120B read with Section
 364A IPC.
     3. Heard learned amicus curiae for the appellant and      E
learned counsel for the respondent.
      4. Prosecution story in brief is that PW-6, Subhash
Chandra Singh, gave a written information at Police Station,
Kahalgaon, on 23.4.2002 at 8.05 a.m. that his grandson Sagar F
Kumar (PW-5) has been kidnappe_d. The informant narrated
in the written report that the victim (Sagar Kumar), aged six
years, along with his sister PW-4 Riya Kumari, aged four years,
was going to St. Joseph NTPC School, Kahalgaon in a
rickshaw pulled by PW-1 Anil Ram. The informant further told G
that the rickshaw puller told him that one person came to the
rickshaw and took the victim after telling him that his father
was calling him at the railway station. On receiving information,
the informant immediately rushed to the location where the
                                                               H
568         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014113 S.C.R.


A rickshaw puller Anil Ram (PW-1) was waiting for the victim's
  n~turn. An FIR No. 117/2002 was recorded at the police station
  and the investigations were taken up by the Investigating
  Officer.

8            5. Investigation revealed that after one day of kidnapping
      of the child, a demand of Rs.10.00 lakhs was made by
      someone on phone disclosing his name as Prem Prakash
      Yadav (co-accused) for release of the boy. When several calls
      were made, on 17 .5.2002 the victim's parents agreed to pay
c     Rs.6.00 lakhs according to their economic condition. PW-3,
      Sourav Kumar (father of the victim) passed on the phone
      number of the caller to the police. The kidnappers called father
      of the victim to Haldwani (Uttarakhand), on which the witness
      (PW-3) desired to know as to by what route he could reach
D     there. The caller informed the father of the victim to come by
      Farakka Express to Lucknow, and from there by a meter gauge
      train to Lal Kuan from where he would be getting tempo (three
      wheeler) to reach Haldwani. Accordingly PW-3 Sourav Kumar
      reached Haldwani on 21.5.2002 with money, and stayed at
E     Kamta Hotel and waited for the caller's messenger from where
      he was taken by the present appellant (Motilal Yadav) to the
      side of rivulet near Krishi Utpadan Bazar Samiti (Haldwani).
      Two persons (co-accused) were already waiting there. After
      making enquiry as to the amount brought by the witness (PW-
F     3), two of the accused persons took the bag. Thereafter PW-
      3 Sourav Kumar was taR.en to Haldwani Bareilly Road where
      the victim was handed over to his father. Victim's father, along
      with his recovered son, reached back Kahalgaon on 25.5.2002,
G     and narrated the entire story to the police. After collecting
      evidence and interrogating the witnesses, prosecution filed
      charge-sheet against seven accused, namely, Raghunath
      Yadav, Prem Kumar Yadav@ Tuntun Yadav, Motilal Yadav
      (present appellant), Bina Devi, Bijay Yadav, Prem Prakash
H     Yadav and Mamta Devi.
              MOTILAL YADAV v. STATE OF BIHAR                    569
                   [PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.]

      6. It appears that the trial court, after framing the charge A
and recording evidence, on conclusion of trial, found all the
above seven accused guilty of charge of offences punishable
under Section 364A read with Section 34 IPC and under
Section 120B read with Section 364A IPC, and after hearing
of the matter on sentence, each one of them was sentenced to B
imprisonment for life and directed to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-
under Section 364A read with Section 34 IPC, and further
imprisonment for a period of two years under Section 120B
read with Section 364A IPC.
                                                                  c
      7. The convicts challenged the order of the trial court
before the High Court. Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 208 of 2006
was filed by accused Raghunath Yadav, Prem Kumar Yadav
@Tuntun Yadav and Motilal Yadav, Criminal Appeal (DB) No.
232 of 2006 was filed by Bina Devi, Bijay Yadav and Prem D
Prakash Yadav, and Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 246 of 2006
was filed by the accused Mamta Devi. All the three appeals
were disposed of by the High Court by its common order dated
5.11.2012 which has been challenged before us in the present
appeal by accused/convict Motilal Yadav.                      E
      8. Mr. D.N. Goburdhan, learnedAmicus Curiae, on behalf
of the appellant, argued before us that the High Court has
decided the criminal appeals without scrutinizing the entire
evidence on record, and as such, the impugned order is liable F
to be set aside. He referred to the cases of Rama and others
v. State of Rajasthan 1, Badam Singh v. State of M.P. 2,
Prasad alias Hari Prasad Acharya v. State of Karnataka 3
and Ram Ratan v. State of Rajasthan 4 . We have gone
through the cases relied on behalf of the appellant, but we are G
1
  (2002) 4sec 571
2
  (2003) 12sec 792
'(2009) 3 sec 174
• (201o)13 sec so9
                                                                  H
570         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2014] 13 S.C.R.


A of the view that the above mentioned cases are of little help in
  the present case, forthe reason that neitherthe impugned order
  is cryptic nor without discussion of evidence on record.
  Statement of each of the witnesses, namely, PW-1 Anil Ram
  (Rickshaw Puller), PW-2 Neetu Singh (mother of the victim),
B PW-3 Sourav Kumar (father of the victim), PW-4 Riya Kumari
  (sister of the victim), PW-5 Sagar Kumar (victim) and PW-6
  Subhash Chandra Singh (informant and grandfather of the
  victim), has been discussed at length by the High Court, apart
  from discussing the evidence of formal witnesses, namely, PW-
C 7 Ramji Singh (constable), PW-9 Gouri Mohan Mitra and the
  Investigating Officer PW-8 Shivjee Singh and PW-10 Anand
  Prakash Singh. The High Court has also taken note of the
  statement of DW-1 Jawahar Jha. The High Court, after
  discussing the evidence of each of the above mentioned
0
  witnesses, has further discussed the evidence on record as to
  how from the corroboration of the statements of the witnesses,
  the entire prosecution story and the charge stood proved.

             9. PW-1 Anil Ram has corroborated the fact that he was
 E    taking the children Sagar Kumar and Riya Kumari to the school
      when the accused (Prem Yadav), identified by him before the
      trial court, took the child by telling him that his father was calling
      him at the Railway Station. PW-2 Neetu Singh has
      corroborated that rickshaw puller Anil Ram (PW-1) informed
 F    on phone at 7.15 a.m. about the incident. She has further
      corroborated the fact regarding demand of ransom made by
      the kidnappers for release of the victim (Sagar Kumar). PW-
      3 Sourav Kumar is the most important witness of the case
      who had opportunity to see most of the accused including the
 G
      present appellant (Motilal Yadav) as he went to Haldwani for
      release of his minor son from their custody. He (PW 3) has
      narrated that after the demand of ransom was made, he agreed
      to pay Rs.6.00 lakhs and sought time to make the arrangement
 H    of money. He further told that on receiving call on 20.5.2002,
            MOTILAL YADAV v. STATE OF BIHAR                        571
                 [PRAFULLAC. PANT, J.]

he asked the caller as to how he could reach Haldwani on           A
which the caller told about the trains available for Lucknow and
Lal Kuan. PW-3 Sourav Kumar, has stated in his evidence
that when he reached Haldwani, he stayed in Kamta Hotel. As
to the role of the present appellant, the witness (PW-3) has
told that the present appellant is the person who enquired from    B
him if he is father of Sagar Kumar, and then took him in a
rickshaw by the side of rivulet near Krishi Utpadan Bazar Samiti
(Haldwani). The witness has further narrated about the role of
the other accused in his statement which we do not think it
necessary to discuss here as other convicts are not appellants     C
before us. The witness has given all the details as· to how
money was taken to the place where his son was released
and handed over to him from Haldwani-Bareilly Road. Having
gone through the record and the impugned order, we are of          D
the view that the High Court, in the impugned order, has
discussed at length the prosecution evidence which was
believed by it. We find no force in the argument th<:it the High
Court's order is cryptic or brief.
      10. Another argument advanced before us is that no test · E
identification parade in the present case was held, as such,
the conviction and sentence, recorded by the trial court, has
been wrongly upheld by the High Court. In this connection, our
attention is drawn to the case of Kanan and others v. State
of Kerala 5 . In said case, this Court has opined that failure to F
conduct test identification parade raises serious doubt about
the testimony of the witnesses. On going through said case,
we find that this Court doubted evidence of a particular witness
(PW-25 of said case) who told the Court that he could identify G
the accused persons (not known to him)whowere running away
from the scene of occurrence. Contrary to that, in the present
case the testimony of PW-3 Sourav Kumar is natural as he
5
    (1979)3SCC319
                                                                   H
572         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014] 13 S.C.R.


A explained in what manner he reached Haldwani, and he had
   enough time to identify the accused who accompanied him to
  ·the persons who took money from him whereafter the victim
   was released.

 B          11. The evidence as to the identity of a person is
      admissible under Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
      In the case of Ravi Kumarv. State ofRajasthan6 , this Court
      has opined in paragraph 35 as follows: -
           ".... The court identification itself is a good identification
 c         in the eye of the law. It is not always necessary that it
           must be preceded by the test identification parade. It
           will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of
           a given case. In one case, it may not even be necessary
           to hold the test identification parade while in the other, it
 D
           may be essential to do so. Thus, no straitjacket formula
           can be stated in this regard."

         12. In the case of R. Shajiv. State of.Kerala7 , regarding
   the evidential value of the test identification parade, this Court
 E has stated in paragraph 58 as under: -
            ".... The identification parade is conducted by the police.
            The actual evidence regarding identification is that which
            is given by the witne?S in court. A test identification
 F          parade cannot be claimed by an accused as a matter of
            right. Mere identification of an accused in a test
            identification parade is only a circumstance corroborative
            of the identification of the accused in court ..... "
 G          13. In Ashok Debbarma alias Achak Debbarma v.
      State of Tripura 8 , this Court has made following observations
      in para 20 which are reproduced below: -
      6 (2012)g sec 2s4
      1
        (2013)14 sec 266
 H    8 (2014)4SCC747
             MOTILAL YADAVv. STATE OF BIHAR                          573
                  [PRAFULLAC. PANT, J.]

       "..... The primary object of the test identification parade A
       is to enable the witnesses to identify the persons involved
       in the commission of offence(s) if the offenders are not
       personally known to the witnesses. The whole object
       behind the test identification parade is really to find
       whether or not the suspect is the real offender. In Kanta B
       Prasad v. Delhi Admn. 9 , this Court stated that the failure
       to hold the test identification parade does not make the
       evidence of identification at the trial inadmissible ..... "

      14. In view of the above principle of law laid down by this    c
Court, we are unable to accept the submission of learned
amicus curiae that not holding of test identification parade in
the present case is fatal for the prosecution.

     15. For the reasons, as discussed above, we do not find D
any force in this appeal which is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.


Nidhi Jain                                       Appeal dismissed.




9
    AIR 1958 SC 350