- (1.) These are two appeals by special leave against the judgement of the High Court of Allahabad confirming that of the Sessions Judge of Allahabad. Both the appellants were convicted and sentenced for having committed various offences inclusive of the offence under S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of death therefore against each. At the trial there were five other co-accused charged in respect of the same offences but they were all acquitted. The victim of the offences was a boy named Om Prakesh aged about 14 years. He is the son of one Chauhan, a civil gazetted officer in Ordnance Depot, Chheoki, Allahabad, drawing a pay of about Rs. 600 per month and believed to be rich. The case against both the appellants is that they, along with the five others who have been acquitted, conspired to extort a sum of Rs. 10,000 from Chauhan by kidnapping and murdering his son, Om Prakash. The appellant, Ram Chandra, is a person about 25 years in age, who has received education up to Matriculation standard and was working at the time as a clerk in the Accountant-General's office U.P. He is said to have been a native of Kohaat now part of West Pakistan. Appellant, Ram Bharosey, is a person, about 49 years in age and was a clerk in the Municipal Office at Allahabad. Both of them were living in the same street in Allahabad as Chauhan. It is in evidence and not disputed, that the boy, Om Prakash, was in the habit of going to appellant, Ram Chandra's house now and then and mixing with the members of that family, including Ram Chandra. It is also beyond dispute that the boy, Om Prakash, left his house about noon on the 9th June 1952, and is missing since then. In spite of strenuous efforts to trace him he has not so far been found. The prosecution case is that in pursuance of a conspiracy between the two appellants and the acquitted accused, the boy was taken by the two appellants and one Satya Prakash, to the river Jumna on the evening of the 9th June 1952, and that the two appellants took him into the river pretending to teach him swimming and drowned him them forcibly and stabbed him with a knife. Having thus brought about his death and disappearance on the evening of 9th June 1052, they sent a series of threatening letters purporting to be from one Zalim Daku on various dates commencing from June 10, up to July 4, 1952 and pretending that the boy was in his possession and that it a sum of Rs. 10,000 is paid he will he restored or otherwise be will beheaded. During this period they were constantly moving with Chauhan posing themselves as his friends to help him in tracing the boy but in fact misleading him from the right track and persuading him to agree to pay up the amount in order that he may be able to recover the boy. Chauhan ultimately agreed to pay Rs. 5,000 and in fact arranged to pay up the same in the manner which the letters from Zalim Daku indicated. The letters also undertook that the boy will be restored the next day after the payment. But ultimately the boy was not restored though the money was taken away. During this period the police were also on the track. Chauhan lodged a complaint to the police about the disappearance of the boy on June 30, 1952, the very next day. Chauhan was also keeping the police in touch with all the stages and was handing over to them then and there every letter that he was receiving from Zalim Daku. When he paid the ransom on July 4, he took the step of previously producing before the Additional District Magistrate the currency notes of Rs. 5,000 and getting their numbers noted by him. The police traced the possession of some out of these notes to the appellants. A substantial number of those notes were recovered from the appellant, Ram Chandra, and one note was traced to the appellant, Ram Bharosey. Investigation showed that all the letters received by Chauhan purporting to have been sent by Zalim Daku, were in the hand-writing of the appellant Ram Chandra, according to the opinion of the handwriting expert. No trace, however, of the boy could be found. Not only was the dead body not found but absolutely no other material has been discovered which would indicate either thin factum of murder or the perpetrator thereof. Both the appellants were arrested on July 6, 1952. Appellant Ram Chandra made a confession before a Magistrate on October 10. The appellants were thereafter tried and convicted in respect of charges under S. 120-B, Ss. 302, 201, 364 and 386 read with S. 120-B or in the alternative with S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They were sentenced as follows, to death under S.302, I.P.C., to transportation for life under S. 364, I.P.C., to ten years' R.I. under S. 368, I.P.C. and to seven years R.I. under S. 201, I.P.C. No separate sentence was awarded in respect of the offences under S.120-B. These convictions and sentences were confirmed and upheld by the High Court on appeal, and hence this appeal by both the appellants.
(2.) For a proper appreciation of the case, it is necessary to set out briefly the contents of the various leltters admittedly received by Chauhan by post and purporting to be from Zalim Daku. Altogether seven f.-letters were received, Exs. P 2 to P. 8. The first of these, letter purports to have been sent by post on June 10, 1952, and is as follows: - "Lala Kishan Das Ji,, Your son Om Prakash reached me through the cleverness of my disciples, and by the time this letter reaches you, he will be several hundred miles away from here. For this reason if you want to see your son safe and sound, you should send a sum of Rs. 10,000 to any place, where we may ask you to do so. You should bear it in mind that if you inform the police, etc., your son will be beheaded and his head will be sent to you. My men are following you constantly and I am regularly getting information regarding every minute. If you agree to pay the sum of Rs. 10,000 you should put a mark =on the wall in front of your "kothi". Put the mark resembling such two lines. If you do not agree (to pay the amount) put a mark like X. In case the money is not given, the head of your son will be cut off and you would receive the same within 15 days. When I see the mark like this = a latter will be sent to you again wherein the name of the place and the names of the persons will be mentioned. You will have to come with those men and hand over the money at that particular place. Let me remind you that if you inform the police it will be harmful to you. In that case the head of your son will be cut off and will be sent to you. You should particularly bear this thing in mind. Sd, Zalim Daku." The next letter is dated June 17, and informs Chauhan about the futility of running after the police to help him to trace his son and tells him that the writer will give him only three chances, this letter being the second chance and the third chance to be given by a letter to be written after the 20th. It asks him to make up his mind quickly whether he will part with his money or will have the head of his son. He instructs him to place quickly on the wall in front of his house the mark = indicated in his letter so as to convey his consent to pay the ransom. It also assures him that the writer has no personal grudge against him and that his boy will not be put to any trouble but that he must unfailingly get the ransom of Rs. 10,000. The letter contains a number of other details indicating knowledge of the writer about the movements of Chauhan and his contacts with the police and the movements of various other persons along with Chauhan including the two appellants. The third and fourth letters dated June 22 and 23, were received on the same day enclosed in one cover. The third letter dated June 22, informed him, that in spite of his writing to him that his son is with him, he is trying to approach the police and that the police cannot trace his son, that his son is sad and deteriorating in health, that he has written to him for the last time and that he cannot delay the matter for more than a week at the most and that in case his terms am not acceptable he will not hesitate to put an end to the life of the boy and that he should paste a paper on the outside of his door containing the mark of two lines and that all this must be done by the evening of the 24th. The fourth letter dated the 23rd purports to offer a concession and undertakes to accept Rs. 7,000 as the ransom instead of the original demand of Rs. 10,000 and asks that the mark on the wall should be placed by the 24th and promises thereafter to send a letter on the 25 indicating the place, time and date where the money is to be kept for the writer to got it. It is in evidence that after the receipt of these letters a poster was pasted at the instance of Chauhan on the 25-26th June in front of his gate compound wall with the words "I can pay Rs. 3,000 up to 1st July" and along with it the mark indicated in the previous letters was put. Thereupon another letter dated the 28th June was received which intimated that the mark put by him has been seen, but that nothing less than Rs. 5,000 would be received and giving detailed instructions as to where the money should be kept and who all are to accompany for his assistance. It is to be noted that the two appellants are to be amongst those who, according to the writer of that letter, are insisted upon for accompanying Chauhan when he goes to deposit the money at the appointed place and at the appointed time. A sketch also was attached to the letter indicating the place where the money in a bag was to be kept. The place indicated is a small culvert after passing over the rail- way bridge on the river Jumna. This letter was accompanied by another letter dated the 1st July reiterating that he cannot take anything less than Rs. 5,000 and reiterating also the instructions given in the previous-letter as to the place where the money is to be kept, the persons who are to accompany, and other details and precautions. This was followed by another letter dated 8-7-1952, containing some further instructions. It is in evidence that in pursuance of the various instructions, Chauhan with his party, including the two appellants, went to the spot. i.e., the culvert near the Jumna railway bridge and placed there the sum of Rs. 5,000 in a bag. But before doing so he got the numbers of the actual currency notes which he was about to give to the person purporting to be Zalim Daku, noted by the Additional District Magistrate on the 3rd and 4th July. After having deposited the amount, these persons in two batches were waiting at each end of the Jumna railway bridge. It was found that the money was lifted away by some unknown person at about 8.30 p.m. and that in its place a letter dated the 4th July was placed. This letter indicated that Chauhan should go to the (Allahabad) Junction railway station "tomorrow" (i.e.5th July) at 3 O'clock and take his son away. There was no indication whether this meant 3 p.m. or 3 a.m. Chauhan went to the Junction railway station at 3 p.m. and did not find his son. He waited on till 3 a.m. The two appellants came there at about 12 in the night ostensibly to keep company with him. The police came on the spot and arrested both the appellants at the station and recovered one ten rupee note from a betel shop keeper close by who stated, at the time, that the appellant Ram Bharosey gave that to him for the purchase of betel-leaves. That currency note was subsequently found to be one of the notes whose numbers had been noted. Thus both these appellants were arrested on the early morning of the 6th July. On a search of appellant Ram Chandra's house, a sum of Rs. 115 was recovered out of which eleven ten rupee notes tallied with the noted numbers. On the 7th July the police officer interrogated both the appellants. Following that interrogation, Ram Chandra with the police proceeded to his house. He went into a room therein and dug the ground and brought out two bundles containing currency notes of ten rupee denomination. The notes totalled a sum of Rs. 4,650 and the numbers thereof tallied with the noted numbers. It may be mentioned that on the 7th July Chauhan received another letter purporting to be from Zalim Daku bearing dated 5th July. This letter informs about the receipt of the ransom and intimates Chauhan that he need not be anxious about the boy, that he should not search for him in vain and that he can shortly meet his son and be satisfied. The appellants were arrested before receipt of this letter.
(3.) As already stated previously, the various letters with the addresses on the envelopes relating thereto purporting to have been written from Zalim Daku have been found by the hand writing expert to be the writing of the appellant Ram Chandra. In addition, to this opinion there were certain items of internal and external evidence which confirmed this opinion. For instance the letters contain information about the movements of Chauhan most of which, on the evidence, were known only to the two appellants. The evidence disclosed also conduct of the appellants which disclosed advance information of the contents of the letters to be received. There was found in the letters the fairly constant use of the word Bagi, which is found to be the characteristic of the appellant Ram Chandre's undisputed letters. There was the fact of his ability to supply certain obvious omissions in the letters such as Nahi when he was asked to read them in the normal course, on the ground of illegibility. These and other features enabled the courts below to find to their satisfaction that all these letters were written by the appellant Ram Chandra. On the basis of the above material the main facts relating to the case, found concurrently by both the courts below are that (1) a substantial portion of the currency notes, whose numbers had been noted and which formed the ransom were found in the possession of the appellant Ram Chandra, (2) one of such notes has been traced to the possession of the appellant Ram Bharosey, who, on the evidence, gave it to the betel shop keeper at the Allahabad Junction Railway station for purchasing betel leaves and (3) all the ransom letters were in the hand-writing of the appellant Ram Chandra. The further important evidence in the case was that relating to the confession made by the appellant Ram Chandra while he was in jail custody. Now as judgment show, the conviction in respect of the offences charged against both these appellants is based mainly on this confession corroborated by the above facts. The first question, therefore, that arises is how far the reliance on the confession for the conviction and sentence relating to the various offences was safe on the facts and circumstances of this case. To appreciate the position, thus arising, it is necessary to set out the confession and the attendant circumstances.;