SHAILENDRA RAJDEV PASVAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
LAWS(SC)-2019-12-51
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
December 13,2019
Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF GUJARAT
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
SHARAD BIRDHICHAND SARDA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]BODH RAJ VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR [REFERRED TO]
RAMBRAKSH @ JALIM VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [REFERRED TO]
ANJAN KUMAR SARMA AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF ASSAM [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
RAM PRATAP VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-7-34] [REFERRED TO]SHAIK MAHABOOB DOWLA VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2024-2-25] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD. HUSSAIN VS. STATE OF J&K [LAWS(J&K)-2024-11-6] [REFERRED TO]
NABI HASAN NOOR HASAN KHAN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-9-96] [REFERRED TO]
PINTOO SOMABHAI BARIYA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2022-6-1699] [REFERRED TO]
INDRASAN DEVI VS. STATE [LAWS(RAJ)-2022-9-224] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. KARUNA KUMAR [LAWS(KAR)-2024-6-132] [REFERRED TO]
KISHANLAL VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2021-8-50] [REFERRED TO]
ARAVINDAN VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2024-9-87] [REFERRED TO]
GANGESHWAR CHAUDHARY VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2024-3-7] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY INDWAR VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2023-7-32] [REFERRED TO]
RAHUL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2022-7-1733] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KUMAR VERMA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-3-29] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U.P. VS. ANIL KUMAR [LAWS(ALL)-2021-11-70] [REFERRED TO]
KALADHAR CHAUBEY VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-1-41] [REFERRED TO]
SINGNGAIHSUTA VS. STATE OF MIZORAM [LAWS(GAU)-2024-1-37] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF A.P. VS. MOHAMMAD ABDUL SAMMAD MUNNA [LAWS(APH)-2024-5-49] [REFERRED TO]
RAJVEER SINGH VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2023-4-171] [REFERRED TO]
RAM BAHADUR THAPA VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2021-10-122] [REFERRED TO]
BARKA MURMU VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2023-6-15] [REFERRED TO]
R. SREENIVASA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(SC)-2023-9-24] [REFERRED TO]
DIL KUMAR YADAV VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2023-8-56] [REFERRED TO]
ASHISH PATHAK VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2024-10-21] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. DIGAMBAR S/O BABURAO DASRE [LAWS(BOM)-2021-12-145] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESHGAR KHETGAR GOSWAMY VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2022-7-1781] [REFERRED TO]
SAHIDUL RAHAMAN VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2024-10-31] [REFERRED TO]
INDRAKUNWAR VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(SC)-2023-10-53] [REFERRED TO]
INDRAJIT DAS VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(SC)-2023-2-79] [REFERRED TO]
LAXMAN PRASAD VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-2023-6-13] [REFERRED TO]
GANESH MAHADEO YADAV VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2023-11-36] [REFERRED TO]
BIMAL VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2023-5-163] [REFERRED TO]
SHAMIMA KHATOON VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2024-12-35] [REFERRED TO]
SIVAMANI VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2024-9-85] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2024-9-5] [REFERRED TO]
SABIR KHAN VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2022-5-115] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
KRISHNA MURARI,J. -
(1.)These appeals arise from the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat dated 28th September 2016 convicting the appellants under Section 302 read with Sections 363, 364, 364-A and 365 and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, under Section 21 (1)(a) of the Arms Act and under Section 3 and 5 of the Indian Explosive Act. The Division Bench while reversing the order of acquittal passed by the trial court, has imposed following punishment upon the appellants:
![]()
JUDGEMENT_51_LAWS(SC)12_2019_1.jpg
![]()
JUDGEMENT_51_LAWS(SC)12_2019_2.jpg
(2.)Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 5th February 2001, the complainant, Paramhansh Mangal Yadav (PW-1), had informed the police at Kapodra Police Station that his youngest son, Arjun, aged about 9 years who was studying in second standard, was missing from 4th February 2001. On the fateful day, the complainant, as per routine, had left for work at 8:00 am and had returned at 2:00 pm for lunch, when he noticed that Arjun was missing. The complainant had searched for Arjun in the streets and at the relatives' residing nearby but he could not be located. This information given by the complainant was recorded by an entry made in the police diary. Thereafter, formal complaint was registered on 14th February 2001. In this complaint, Paramhansh (PW-1) had pointed out that initially Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan, Appellant/Accused No.1, had joined the search but thereafter he had suddenly vanished. After about four days, the Appellant No.1 had made a call to the complainant and disclosed that he was in Vapi. The complainant got suspicious and thereupon had sent his brother-in-law Sadhusharan Harinandan Yadav (PW-9) and two other relatives Sudarshan and Premchand Yadav to Vapi to bring Appellant No. 1 back. Upon returning, Appellant No. 1 is alleged to have made an extra-judicial confession before about 50 people near Paramhansh's (PW-1) house. Appellant No. 1 had confessed that he had kidnapped Arjun at the behest of Ramkeval Mutur Yadav, Accused No. 5, who had animosity and grievance against the complainant. Appellant No. 1 had made Arjun sit on his bicycle and had taken him to the railway station, where he was handed over to Ram Ashish and Shivnath, Appellant/Accused Nos. 2 and 3.
(3.)Thereupon, Shailendra, Appellant No. 1, was arrested by the police on 14th February 2001.
(2.)Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 5th February 2001, the complainant, Paramhansh Mangal Yadav (PW-1), had informed the police at Kapodra Police Station that his youngest son, Arjun, aged about 9 years who was studying in second standard, was missing from 4th February 2001. On the fateful day, the complainant, as per routine, had left for work at 8:00 am and had returned at 2:00 pm for lunch, when he noticed that Arjun was missing. The complainant had searched for Arjun in the streets and at the relatives' residing nearby but he could not be located. This information given by the complainant was recorded by an entry made in the police diary. Thereafter, formal complaint was registered on 14th February 2001. In this complaint, Paramhansh (PW-1) had pointed out that initially Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan, Appellant/Accused No.1, had joined the search but thereafter he had suddenly vanished. After about four days, the Appellant No.1 had made a call to the complainant and disclosed that he was in Vapi. The complainant got suspicious and thereupon had sent his brother-in-law Sadhusharan Harinandan Yadav (PW-9) and two other relatives Sudarshan and Premchand Yadav to Vapi to bring Appellant No. 1 back. Upon returning, Appellant No. 1 is alleged to have made an extra-judicial confession before about 50 people near Paramhansh's (PW-1) house. Appellant No. 1 had confessed that he had kidnapped Arjun at the behest of Ramkeval Mutur Yadav, Accused No. 5, who had animosity and grievance against the complainant. Appellant No. 1 had made Arjun sit on his bicycle and had taken him to the railway station, where he was handed over to Ram Ashish and Shivnath, Appellant/Accused Nos. 2 and 3.
(3.)Thereupon, Shailendra, Appellant No. 1, was arrested by the police on 14th February 2001.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.