STATE OF BIHAR Vs. CHINTOO SINGH ALIAS VIJAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Death Reference and connected five Criminal Appeals arise out of a common judgment and order dated 24th January 2008 passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in Sessions Trial No. 422 of 2006 whereby he has convicted appellant, Chintoo Singh @ Vijay Singh and appellant, Birendra Bhagat under Section 364A of the IPC and the remaining three appellants under Section 364A read with Section 120B of the IPC and has awarded all of them rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000/- each. Appellant Sanjeev Das has been acquitted of the charge under Section 302/34 and 201 of the IPC but the remaining four appellants have been convicted for the said charges also for which appellant Chintoo Singh @ Vijay Singh has been awarded death sentence and the remaining three appellants have been awarded rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each. No separate sentence has been passed under Section 201 of the IPC but in default of payment of fine the concerned convict is required to undergo a further rigorous imprisonment for one year.

(2.) According to prosecution case, Vickey a five year old son of the informant, Sunil Kumar Singh (PW-8) was enticed away by two unknown persons on a motorcycle on 27.02.2006 at about 5:30 p.m. from near the vegetable shop of the informant at Paswan Chowk, Hajipur. A short and precise information was given by the informant to the police through written report dated 27.02.2006 (Ext-2) which disclosed that while the informant was selling vegetables in the evening hours at his shop at Paswan Chowk and his son was playing nearby, a person who came on motorcycle, gave chocolates to the boy and took him on his motorcycle. The age of the boy was five years. That person who enticed away the boy told the daughter of the informant that he would come back with the boy after returning from a washerman's place but he did not come back till the time of information. The informant requested the police to search for the boy. On the basis of the said written report, Hajipur Town (Industrial) P.S. Case No. 105 of 2006 was instituted on 28.02.2006 at 10:15 a.m. against unknown persons. The formal FIR has been proved as Ext-13.

(3.) It is further case of the prosecution as disclosed by the informant that in spite of search the boy was not found. After five or six days of the kidnapping appellant, Sanjay Pandit and Ranjeet told the informant that his son would come back if he paid money. Both the said appellants have vegetable shops in the neighbourhood of informants shop. After three months on 23.06.2006 through telephonic information at the gaddi of one Baleshwar, the informant was asked to pay Rs.4 Lacs for return of his son, Vickey. When the informant expressed his inability to pay that much, the demand was reduced to Rs.2 Lacs and the phone was disconnected. On 1st July 2006, a telephone call came at the gaddi of one Surendra and after bargain the amount was fixed at Rs. 1,05000/- . On 3rd July 2006 phone was received at STD Booth in front of vegetable shop and when the informant replied that he had arranged the money then he was asked to bring the money across the new Gandak Bridge ahead of Line hotel of Bachcha Babu at Sonepur. When the informant expressed fear in coming with the money alone then he was instructed on telephone to come with his neighbours Ranjeet and Sanjay Pandit. Informant had withdrawn Rs. 80,000/- from his saving accounts with Bank of India at Rajendra Chowk, Hajipur and had taken loan of Rs. 20,000/- from his father-in-law, Sakal Mahto and Rs.5,000/- was available with him from before in cash. He requested Sanjay Pandit and Ranjeet to accompany him to Sonepur where he had to pay the money. By chance, appellant, Sanjeet also came there and offered to go along with them for paying the money. On the next date i.e., 4th July 2006 at about 4 O...Clock in the morning the informant wrapped the amount of Rs. 1,05000/- in a plastic bag and kept it in a gunny bag under the carrier of his cycle. Sanjeet sat on the informant's cycle whereas Sanjay Pandit sat on the cyle of Ranjeet. They crossed the new Gandak Bridge and reached Sonepur. Two steps ahead of Line hotel of Bachcha Babu, Sanjeet got down from informant's cycle and went in a hut on the left side of the road. After the informant had proceeded about five steps, two persons came out and pulled away the money concealed in a gunny bag under the carrier of informant's cycle. It appeared that those two persons already knew where the money was kept. Appellants Ranjeet and Sanjay Pandit were also standing there. On enquiry by the informant he was told by the person who had taken the money that his son would reach him by evening hours. When the informant started returning, Sanjeet came out of the hut and sat on his cycle. On informant's enquiry Sanjeet disclosed that his sister's husband whose name is Birendra Bhagat lives in that hut. That Birendra Bhagat was wearing blue shirt and had a light moustache, he was short and fair complexioned whereas the other person was tall and wheatish in complexion and was wearing ring in his ears. This person with ring in his ears was subsequently identified as appellant, Chintoo Singh.