RAMESHKUMAR BHAVERLAL JAIN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise out of the judgement and order passed by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad on 2nd January 1990 in Sessions Case No. 296 of 1988, convicting the original accused No.1 (appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 141 of 1990) for the offences under sections 302, 201, 363, 343, 343, 364, 365 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, and sentencing him to imprisonment for life for the offence under section 302 of the IPC and to suffer rigorous imprisonment of six months for each of the other offences which were to run concurrently, and imposing a fine of Rs.200=00, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The State has appealed (Criminal Appeal No. 161 of 1990) for enhancement of the sentence praying for imposition of death sentence on the original accused No.1 on the ground that this was a rarest of rare cases warranting death penalty as the said accused No.1 / appellant had committed a cold-blooded murder of his two young cousins aged 4 years and 7 years, and had acted in a cruel and unusual manner. The original accused No.2 - Sandip Dinkarlal was acquitted and no appeal has been preferred against his acquittal.

(2.) The charge framed against the accused at exh.2 alleges that, on 19th April 1988, around 6.00 o'clock in the evening, these two accused persons i.e. Rameshkumar Bhanvarlal Jain and Sandip Dinkarlal and one other accused Mukesh Shantilal Jain (who is said to be a juvenile accused) had kidnapped minors Rakesh and Harsh, who were the sons of the complainant - Ghisumal Jain, from his lawful guardianship in order that a big sum of money may be extorted or in order that they may be murdered, and thereby, committed offences under sections 363 and 364 of the IPC. It was further charged that these two accused had, after kidnapping Rakesh and Harsh, kept them in wrongful confinement in Block No. 44/339 of Kalapinagar and committed their murder by causing injuries and thereby, committed offences under sections 302, 342, 343, 368 and 385 of the IPC. A further charge was that these two accused persons, with the intention of screening themselves from legal punishment, had caused the evidence of commission of offence of murder to disappear or had attempted or had tried to destroy the evidence, and thereby, committed the offence under section 201 of the IPC. Having levelled individual charges under sections 363, 364, 302, 342, 343, 368, 385 and 201 of the IPC, the Charge proceeded to further allege that these two accused and Mukesh Shantilal had entered into a criminal conspiracy to kidnap Rakesh and Harsh for the purpose of extorting a big amount of money from the complainant - Ghisumal Jain and committed their murder and caused disappearance of the evidence of the offences, and thereby, committed offences under sections 302, 201, 342, 343, 363, 364, 368, 385 read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. On the same facts, it was also alleged that these two accused had acted in furtherance of their common intention and a separate charge was framed for the offences under the aforesaid provisions read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. An independent charge for abetment of these offences was also framed against these two accused persons in context of the provisions of section 114 of the IPC.

(3.) The accused no.1, who was of 18 years of age at the relevant time, pleaded not guilty. From the record, it appears that the accused No.1 - Ramesh Bhanvarlal Jain also used to sign his surname as `Mehta' and there is no dispute about it. The case of this accused is of total denial. In his statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he admits having taken the keys of Vishnu Purshottambhai's house in Kalapinagar for the purpose of study around February 1988. He admits that he used to go to that house for reading purpose. He has admitted that, at times, Mukesh used to come with him. When he was confronted with the deposition of witness Somabhai that one short statured person used to come to that house with him, he admitted that Mukesh used to sometimes come with him in that house. The accused No.1 filed a written reply at exh. 244, in which he stated that though he had taken the key of Vishnu's house, he had returned it to him after the examination was over in March 1988, and that thereafter, he had never entered that house. He has stated that, on 29th April 1988, when he was arrested by the police, he was not having the keys of that house. He has stated that he had only shown the house of Vishnu to the police and that he did not know that there was a dead body lying in it. According to him, he had not gone to Bhaat village, and states that witness Bhikhabhai and Pramukhbhai who are said to have seen him there, were lying and that the neighbours of Kalapinagar were falsely implicating him. He has denied that he had used the stolen scooter which belonged to Indulal. In his statement, he has further stated that he knew Mukesh and Mukesh used to sometimes accompany him to the house in the Kalapinagar before the examination, and that he had not met him after the examination. He has further stated that he had not purchased the muddamal cardboard box from witness Narayan Chauhan, nor had he purchased the jute rope (Bhindi) from witness Sundarmal. He has stated that he had no reason to kill sons of his uncle and that he had in fact helped his uncle in trying to trace out the children. He has also denied that he had purchased perfume from witness Mohammad Miya. He has stated that he had purchased medicines from witness Dr. Kantilal, who is having his dispensary opposite the house in question, but that was in February 1988.