# Sanjay Singh @ Bhooray (In Jail) v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2022) 6 ILRA 515
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-05-27
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1407 of 2007
- **Bench:** Manoj Misra, Sameer Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sanjay-singh-bhooray-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-48812
- **Pages:** 31

## Headnote

Law
-
appeal
against
conviction - No direct evidence of crime -
Circumstantial evidence - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 364, 302 / 34, 201
and 420 - The Code of criminal procedure,
1973 - Section 313,161,437-A - a case
based on circumstantial evidence has to
face strict scrutiny - Every circumstance
from which conclusion of guilt is to be
drawn must be fully established - the
circumstances should be conclusive in
nature and tendency - they must form a
chain of evidence so complete as not to
leave
any
reasonable
ground
for
a
conclusion consistent with the innocence
of the accused - and such chain of
circumstances must be consistent only
with the hypothesis of the guilt of the
accused and must exclude every possible
hypothesis except the one sought to be
proved by the prosecution. (Para -26,)

Deceased was son of informant (PW-4) -
deceased and accused were friends - were on
visiting terms with each other - appellant had a
widow cousin - deceased resided with his father
and other family members in village - falls in
territorial jurisdiction - deceased left his home
on 03.04.2003 - went missing thereafter - FIR
lodged by PW-4( father of deceased) -
allegations - deceased has been abducted and
secreted by accused - FIR suggests twin motive
for crime (a) ransom (b) annoyance on
account of relationship of deceased with
cousin of appellant - no independent witness of
recovery examined by prosecution - body
recovered
not
photographed
-
extremely
doubtful - recovery discarded by court. (Para -
28,36 )

(B) Criminal Law- case based on direct
ocular account of the crime - existence of
motive is not of much importance - case
based on circumstantial evidence - motive
assumes importance - at times serves as a
vital link to the chain of circumstances
because, absence of a motive may serve
as a catalyst to strengthen the alternative
hypothesis - if there is a room for any,
consistent with the innocence of the
accused. (Para - 30 )

(C) Criminal Law - matters relating to
kidnapping or abduction for ransom -
victim party awaits return of the kidnapee
or abductee for fear or danger to his or
her life therefore, in such matters, mere
delay in setting the law into motion may
not prove fatal to the prosecution story -
where hope of return of the abductee
disappears, delay in lodging the report
would,
in
absence
of
plausible
explanation, raise suspicion as regards the
credibility of the prosecution story - held -
inordinate delay in lodging the FIR shrouds the
prosecution story with suspicion as regards
demand and payment of ransom.(Para - 32)

(D) Criminal Law - prosecution story
developed on strong suspicion and guesswork - howsoever strong suspicion might
be it cannot take the place of proof - when
516 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
a reasonable doubt arises with regard to
the prosecution story /the prosecution
evidence, the benefit doubt would have to
be extended to the accused.(Para -36)

HELD:-The
prosecution
story
and
the
prosecution evidence do not inspire confidence
of court . No option but to extend the benefit of
doubt to the appellant (Sanjay Singh @
Bhooray). As regards other appellants, there is
no worthwhile evidence against them. The
evidence of the deceased being last seen with
the accused appellants on a Tonga by PW-5
discarded. All the appellants are entitled to be
acquitted. (Para - 36,37)

Criminal Appeals allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

_Characters 0–39,956 of 108,308. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39956 for what follows._

6 All. Sanjay Singh @ Bhooray Vs. State of U.P.
515
----------
(2022)06ILR A515
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ MISRA, J.
THE HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1407 of 2007
with
Criminal Appeal No. 1069 of 2007
with
Criminal Appeal No. 1223 of 2007

Sanjay Singh @ Bhooray
 ...Appellant (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Smt. Shubhra Singh, Sri Abhay Raj Singh, Sri
Ashutosh Tewari, Sri Atul Kumar Shahi, Sri
Jitendra Pal Singh, Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sri
Pradeep Kumar Singh, Sri S.K. Singh, Sri
S.N.Pandey, Sri S.W. Ali,Sadhna Upadhayay, Sri
Vinay Kumar Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A.

(A)
Criminal
Law
-
appeal
against
conviction - No direct evidence of crime -
Circumstantial evidence - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 364, 302 / 34, 201
and 420 - The Code of criminal procedure,
1973 - Section 313,161,437-A - a case
based on circumstantial evidence has to
face strict scrutiny - Every circumstance
from which conclusion of guilt is to be
drawn must be fully established - the
circumstances should be conclusive in
nature and tendency - they must form a
chain of evidence so complete as not to
leave
any
reasonable
ground
for
a
conclusion consistent with the innocence
of the accused - and such chain of
circumstances must be consistent only
with the hypothesis of the guilt of the
accused and must exclude every possible
hypothesis except the one sought to be
proved by the prosecution. (Para -26,)

Deceased was son of informant (PW-4) -
deceased and accused were friends - were on
visiting terms with each other - appellant had a
widow cousin - deceased resided with his father
and other family members in village - falls in
territorial jurisdiction - deceased left his home
on 03.04.2003 - went missing thereafter - FIR
lodged by PW-4( father of deceased) -
allegations - deceased has been abducted and
secreted by accused - FIR suggests twin motive
for crime (a) ransom (b) annoyance on
account of relationship of deceased with
cousin of appellant - no independent witness of
recovery examined by prosecution - body
recovered
not
photographed
-
extremely
doubtful - recovery discarded by court. (Para -
28,36 )

(B) Criminal Law- case based on direct
ocular account of the crime - existence of
motive is not of much importance - case
based on circumstantial evidence - motive
assumes importance - at times serves as a
vital link to the chain of circumstances
because, absence of a motive may serve
as a catalyst to strengthen the alternative
hypothesis - if there is a room for any,
consistent with the innocence of the
accused. (Para - 30 )

(C) Criminal Law - matters relating to
kidnapping or abduction for ransom -
victim party awaits return of the kidnapee
or abductee for fear or danger to his or
her life therefore, in such matters, mere
delay in setting the law into motion may
not prove fatal to the prosecution story -
where hope of return of the abductee
disappears, delay in lodging the report
would,
in
absence
of
plausible
explanation, raise suspicion as regards the
credibility of the prosecution story - held -
inordinate delay in lodging the FIR shrouds the
prosecution story with suspicion as regards
demand and payment of ransom.(Para - 32)

(D) Criminal Law - prosecution story
developed on strong suspicion and guesswork - howsoever strong suspicion might
be it cannot take the place of proof - when
516 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
a reasonable doubt arises with regard to
the prosecution story /the prosecution
evidence, the benefit doubt would have to
be extended to the accused.(Para -36)

HELD:-The
prosecution
story
and
the
prosecution evidence do not inspire confidence
of court . No option but to extend the benefit of
doubt to the appellant (Sanjay Singh @
Bhooray). As regards other appellants, there is
no worthwhile evidence against them. The
evidence of the deceased being last seen with
the accused appellants on a Tonga by PW-5
discarded. All the appellants are entitled to be
acquitted. (Para - 36,37)

Criminal Appeals allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs St. of Mah.,
(1984) 4 SCC 116

2. Shatrughna Baban Meshram Vs St. of Mah.,
(2021) 1 SCC 596

3. Mukesh & anr. Vs St. (NCT of Delhi), (2017) 6
SCC 1

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Misra, J.)

1. These three appeals are against a
common
judgment
and
order
dated
23.01.2007 passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Pilibhit in S.T.
No.797 of 2003 connected with S.T.
No.212 of 2004, arising out of Case Crime
No.320 of 2003, P.S. Bilsanda, District
Pilibhit, whereby, the appellants Sanjay
Singh @ Bhooray (appellant in Criminal
appeal No.1407 of 2007), Vipin Singh
(appellant in Criminal appeal No.1069 of
2007), Sompal Singh (whose Criminal
appeal no.1063 of 2007 was abated by
order
dated
19.01.2022)
and
Bare
(appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1223 of
2007) were convicted under Sections 364,
302 / 34, 201 and 420 IPC and were
sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine
of Rs.2500/- coupled with default sentence
of additional six months each under Section
364 IPC and Section 302/34 IPC; three
years R.I. and fine of Rs.2,500/- coupled
with a default sentence of additional six
months under section 201 IPC; and three
years R.I. and fine of Rs.2500/- under
Section 420 IPC coupled with a default
sentence of additional six months. All
sentences to run concurrently. It be
clarified that in S.T. No.797 of 2003, three
accused, namely, Sanjay Singh @ Bhooray
(appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1407 of
2007); Vipin Singh (appellant in Criminal
Appeal No.1069 of 2007); and Sompal
Singh (appellant in Criminal Appeal
No.1063 of 2007), were tried; whereas, in
S.T. No.212 of 2004, Bare (appellant in
Criminal Appeal No.1063 of 2007) was
tried. Criminal Appeal No.1063 of 2007
separately filed by Sompal Singh was
abated
vide
order
dated
19.01.2022
consequent to his death.

INTRODUCTORY FACTS

2. The prosecution story elicited from
the written report (Ex. Ka-1) is that on
01.04.2003 Sanjay Singh @ Bhooray, a
resident
of
Village
Majhgawa,
P.S
Bilsanda,
District
Pilibhit,
came
to
informant's (PW-4's) house at village
Jamuniya Jagatpur, P.S. Pooranpur, District
Pilibhit
and
invited
informant's
son
Parminder (the deceased) to Majhgawa. In
response to that invite, on 03.04.2003 the
deceased went on a cycle to Pooranpur,
parked his cycle at the shop of Arvind
(PW-1) and told PW-1 that he is going to
the house of Bhooray at Majhgawa and
would return by evening. But the deceased
did not return. On 05.04.2003, at about
1.30 pm, PW-4 (the informant) received a
call demanding Rs.2,00,000/- for release of
his son. The voice on the phone appeared to
6 All. Sanjay Singh @ Bhooray Vs. State of U.P.
517
be of Bhooray. After receiving the call, on
05.04.2003 itself, PW-4 with Kashmir
Singh (not examined), Sukhvinder Singh
(PW-3), Sukhveer Singh (not examined)
and Ravi Azad (PW-2) went to Bhooray's
house at Majhgawa. There, Bhooray and
other villagers admitted that Parminder
Singh
(the
deceased)
had
come
to
Majhgawa and on 04.04.2003 he had lunch
with Sanjay, Bare, Vipin and Som Pal at
Som Pal's house at Rautapur. But Bhooray
did not disclose as to where PW-4's son go
after having lunch. As a result, information
was given to the police of P.S. Bilsanda
regarding abduction of informant's son.
Upon this information, the police of P.S.
Bilsanda neither registered a report nor
arrested Bhooray but enquired from Sanjay
@ Bhooray. Thereafter, on 16.04.2003, and
two
days
thereafter,
Bhooray
called
(phoned) the informant to bring Rs.50,000/-
at Madnapur Chauraha, Jalalabad, at 2 pm,
to secure release of his son. On this call,
PW-4 and PW-3 along with Kashmir Singh
(not examined) and Harjinder Singh (not
examined) took the money to the specified
place and gave it to Sanjay @ Bhooray.
There, with Sanjay there was an unknown
person. After receiving the money and
extending the promise that informant's son
would be released in 20 minutes, Bhooray
went away with the money. Informant
waited there till evening, but his son was
not released. By making these allegations
and by adding that Sanjay Singh's cousin
Manju Singh (a widow) had close relations
with informant's son (the deceased), which
was not palatable to Sanjay Singh @
Bhooray and his family members, the
written report was got lodged by expressing
suspicion that Sanjay Singh @ Bhooray
with the help of his associates has abducted
informant's son with a view to kill him and
in that process, they cheated the informant
of Rs.50,000/-. The written report (Ex. Ka1) was submitted to the Superintendent of
Police, Pilibhit, which, on his direction,
was registered as an FIR at P.S. Bilsanda,
District Pilibhit on 04.05.2003 at 7.30
hours (i.e. Case Crime No.320 of 2003,
under Section 364 IPC).

3. After registration of the FIR, on
06.05.2003,
at
about
12.05
hours,
according to the prosecution, Sanjay Singh
@ Bhooray was arrested of which entry
was made in the G.D., vide Report No.25 at
12.35 hours. Thereafter, a disclosure
statement of Sanjay @ Bhooray was
allegedly recorded of which there is a G.D.
entry, vide Report No.27 at 12.50 hours, at
P.S. Bilsanda (Ex. Ka-12). On the basis of
this
disclosure,
the
police
team
accompanying Sanjay Singh @ Bhooray
went to the spot and at about 3 pm, on
06.05.2003 itself, recovered the body of the
deceased from the bottom of a canal
(Nahar) and prepared a composite recovery
as well as confession memo (Ex. Ka-13)
including a site plan (Ex. Ka-14). The
recovery/confession memo (Ex. Ka-13)
was witnessed by Sukhdev Singh (not
examined)
and
Arvind
Singh
(not
examined) and thumb marked by Sanjay
Singh @ Bhoorey. The fard/ memo of
recovery (Ex. Ka-13) reflects that at the
time of the recovery, the informant had
arrived at the spot and had identified the
body. At the time of the recovery, the body
was in a decomposed state and except an
underwear there were no clothes on it.

4. Inquest was conducted at the spot
of recovery and was completed by 19.00
hours on 06.05.2003. Inquest report (Ex.
Ka-2) was prepared by Sub Inspector
Virendra Kumar (PW-8), which was
witnessed
by
Sukhdev
Singh
(not
examined), the informant (PW-4), Arvind
Singh (not examined), Pradhan Singh (not
518 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
examined), Manoj Kumar (not examined)
and Sarvender Singh (not examined).
Inquest report while describing the body
recites that right arm below elbow is
missing.

5. Autopsy was conducted on
07.05.2003, at about 2 pm, by Dr. Bhagwan
Das (PW-6), who prepared the autopsy
report (Ex. Ka-3) on 07.05.2003. The
autopsy report in respect of the external
examination of the body recites:-

"A male body of average built
and muscularity. Rigor mortis absent.
Severe foul smell coming from body. Skin
detached at places. Soft tissue as a whole
absent on upper part of skull. Bone of skull
exposed and seen. Sutures are loose. Soft
tissue absent on right lower limb leg and
both bone exposed. Same thing is on left
side lower limb. Ligament and joints are
loose. Soft tissue on left whole upper limb
are absent and bones seen. Joints are
loose. Soft tissue absent on left shoulder
and scapular region. Both side only orbital
fossa seen. Soft tissue present only. Orbital
bones are seen. Fossa part of nose absent.
Both jaws opened widely and teeth are
seen. Two teeth right incision missing
others are loose in socket. Tongue is
putrefied and present in black mass. No
skin present on face. Soft tissues are also
absent on face. Skin over neck is peeling
off.
Right
hand
missing.
Abdomen
distended and skin peeled off at places.
Ante mortem injury not detectable due to
decomposition of body. Scrotum shrunken
and penis in decomposed state.

Internal examination:- Scalp. No
fracture noticed. Membranes - putrified
and adherent to inner part of skull bones.
Brain- highly liquefied. Pleura- adherent to
chest cavity and decomposed state. Larynx-
softened congested, hyoid bone intact.
Lungs- both lungs shrunken and putrified
congested; (sic) blood stained fluid present
in both lungs. Pericardium- adherent to
heart. Heart- shrunken, softened. Both
chamber empty. Buccal cavity- 14 x 16
loose. Oesophagus- putrified. Stomach-
bursted due to decomposition and empty.
Small intestine- shrunken contains fluid
and gasses. Large intestine- shrunken
softened
and
contains
faeces.
Liver-
softened shrunken congested weight about
600 gm. Gallbladder- half full adherent to
liver. Pancreas. Putrified. Spleen- Softened
shrunken
congested
weight
160
gm.
Urinary bladder- decomposed state.

Cause of death due to asphyxia."

6. After completing the investigation,
two separate charge-sheets were submitted.
One charge sheet (Ex. Ka-15) was
submitted
against
Sanjay
Singh
@
Bhooray, Vipin Singh and Sompal Singh
and other charge sheet (Ex. Ka-16) was
submitted against Bare. After taking
cognizance on the two charge sheets, the
case was committed to the court of session.
In S.T. No.797 of 2003, Sanjay Singh @
Bhooray, Vipin Singh and Sompal Singh
were charged for offences punishable under
Sections 364, 302 read with Section 34,
201 and 420 IPC, whereas, in S.T. No.212
of 2004, the appellant Bare was separately
charged for the same offences. As both
sessions trial arose from Case Crime
No.320 of 2003, they were connected with
each other and on denial of charge framed
against the accused, the trial commenced.

PROSECUTION EVIDENCE

7. The prosecution examined as many
as nine witnesses. Their testimony, shorn of
unnecessary details, is as follows:-
6 All. Sanjay Singh @ Bhooray Vs. State of U.P.
519

8. PW-1 (Arvind Kumar). He is the
cycle shop owner at Pooranpur where the
deceased had parked his cycle. According
to this witness, Sanjay Singh alias Bhooray
was known to him since before the
incident. Sanjay Singh was a friend of
Parminder Singh (the deceased). PW-1
stated that about a year and a half back
(note: statement of this witness was
recorded on 25.09.2004), while he was at
his shop at Pooranpur, the deceased came
on a cycle and parked his cycle there and
stated that he is going to Majhgawa village
to visit Bhooray and would return by
evening. After that the deceased went away
and did not return back. The cycle
remained parked at PW-1's shop for 3-4
days; thereafter, PW-1 took the cycle and
delivered it at deceased's house.

During cross-examination, he
stated that many people come and leave
their cycle at his shop but he does not know
their name. PW-1 stated that he is well
acquainted with deceased's father; that
deceased's father had not told him that the
deceased is missing; that in ordinary course
he would never go to return cycle of his
customers; that he went to return the cycle
because the deceased as well as his family
members were well known to him. In
respect of financial status of the deceased,
PW-1 stated that the deceased had a tractor
and two motorcycles and is a big farmer.

On further cross-examination,
he stated that his statement about the
deceased having parked his cycle at his
shop was told by him for the first time in
court and that he had not told the I.O. about
that cycle. He denied the suggestion that he
is telling lies because of his friendship with
the deceased and his family. He also denied
the suggestion that the deceased never
parked his cycle at his shop.

9. PW-2 (Ravi Azad). He is a taxi
owner residing at Pooranpur, whose taxi
was used by the informant (PW-4) to go to
Majhgawa. PW-2 deposed that he knows
Sanjay Singh @ Bhooray and the deceased
Parminder Singh from before the incident.
He stated that on April 3, 2003, while he
was going to the bus station, on way, at
Arvind's Cycle Shop, he met Arvind (PW1), who told him that Parminder (the
deceased) had come in the morning and had
parked his cycle at his shop and had told
him that he is going to Bhooray's house at
Majhgawa and would return by the
evening. He stated that on 05.04.2003,
Nirmol Singh (PW-4 - deceased's father),
Sukhvinder Singh (PW-3), Kashmir Singh
and Sukhvir Singh had come to PW-2's
house and had told him that a phone call,
which appeared in the voice of Bhooray,
was received; as per which, Parminder
Singh (the deceased) was in Bhooray's
custody and for his release, a ransom of
Rs.2,00,000/- has been demanded. PW-2
stated that, after telling all that, PW-4
requested PW-2 to take them to Majhgawa
on his taxi. At the request of PW-4, PW-2
took PW-4, Kashmir Singh, Sukhvinder
Singh (PW-3) and Sukhvir Singh to
Majhgawa. They reached there by 5 pm
and went straight to the house of Bhooray,
where they met Bhooray. When they asked
Bhooray
about
Parminder,
Bhooray
admitted that Parminder had come and they
had lunch at Rautapur at Sompal's house
and, thereafter, Parminder left. When PW-4
questioned Bhooray on that that ransom
call, Bhooray denied having made any such
call. PW-2 stated that thereafter they made
inquiries from the people at Majhgawa.
They all confirmed that Parminder (the
deceased) had come. Thereafter, they all
went to the police station. At the police
station, PW-2 stayed outside the police
station.
520 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

In his cross-examination, at the
instance of Sompal Singh, PW-2 denied the
suggestion that he was making a false
statement with regard to having received
information that the deceased had lunch at
Sompal's house.

In his cross-examination, at the
instance of Sanjay Singh @ Bhooray, he
stated that he knew the deceased since last
10-12 years. Earlier, PW-2 had a fertiliser
shop where the deceased used to come. PW-2
stated that his friendship is with the elder
brother of the deceased and that he is in
visiting terms with him. PW-2 stated that the
deceased's elder brother with whom he has
friendship has come with him to the court
today and had earlier also come with him to
the court. PW-2 stated that he has not known
Sanjay personally but he knows him through
Parminder (the deceased) otherwise, he has
no relationship with Sanjay Singh. He also
stated that on few occasions when he visited
the house of Parminder (the deceased), he
saw Bhooray @ Sanjay Singh there. He,
however, could not tell the date, month or the
year when he last visited the house of the
deceased. However, he stated that in the
marriage of Gurmeet he had seen Sanjay
Singh @ Bhooray. He added that apart from
that marriage, he had seen them together in
the house of the deceased.

On further cross-examination,
he stated that he purchased Marshal vehicle
about two years before and prior to owning
that vehicle, he had a fertiliser shop and
before that he had an expeller and was also
employed as a private bus stand manager.
He admitted that the I.O. had enquired from
him but he could not remember the date
when he was interrogated by the I.O.

On further cross-examination,
he stated that the information about the
deceased having gone missing came to him
for the first time on 05.04.2003 from the
father of the deceased who had told him
that a demand call of Rs.2,00,000/- has
been received by him (PW-4) for release of
Parminder and on his (PW-4's) request,
PW-2 had gone to Majhgawa. He further
stated that when they reached Sanjay's
house and inquired about the deceased,
Sanjay Singh stated that the deceased had
come a day before.

On further cross-examination,
PW-2 stated that PW-4 has about 22 acres
of agricultural holding and has a tractor
trolley as well as motorcycle, though he
does not have a jeep. PW-2 stated that the
distance
between
Jamuniya
and
Ghunghuchihai is about 3 km. Between
Ghunghuchihai and Pooranpur, private
buses ply regularly. The distance between
Ghunghuchihai and Pooranpur is about 12
km and the distance between Pooranpur
and Majhgawa is 53-54 km. He stated that
if one has to go from Jamuniya Jagatpur to
Majhgawa, Pooranpur does not fall in the
route. In respect of his presence at the cycle
shop of Arvind, PW-2 stated that he went
on foot to the cycle shop as he used to go
and sit there sometimes and whenever he
used to go there, Arvind (PW-1) used to tell
him who had visited his cycle shop. PW-2
stated that PW-1 often used to talk about
Parminder Singh (the deceased) and his
family members. PW-2 stated that earlier
also, Arvind had informed him about
Parminder (the deceased) coming to his
shop. In respect of his return to Pooranpur
after visiting Majhgawa, PW-2 stated that
he returned back between 8 and 8-30 pm.
PW-2 admitted that he had not taken rent
for his taxi from the victim's family as they
were known to him. PW-2 stated that after
visiting Bhooray's house, they went to P.S.
Bilsanda but he could not remember
6 All. Sanjay Singh @ Bhooray Vs. State of U.P.
521
whether they had gone to any other place
before visiting the said police station.

On being questioned as to what
Sanjay Singh @ Bhooray stated when he
was questioned by PW-4 in respect of
ransom call made by Sanjay Singh, PW-2
stated that Sanjay Singh stated that he had
not made any such ransom call. PW-2
added that at Majhgawa village, he did not
know anybody else. PW-2 stated that he
had not given any advise to lodge a missing
report in respect of Parminder having gone
missing. He stated that he had reached
Bilsanda Police Station by about 6 pm.
They stayed there for 15-20 minutes. PW-2
stayed outside the police station and he
does not know whether any written report
was given or not. PW-2 stated that after
visiting the police, they did not go to
Majhgawa again from the police station but
he does not know whether the police had
gone there or not. He denied the
suggestions that he is telling lies; that the
deceased had not parked his cycle at
Arvind shop; Arvind had not informed him
about the deceased parking his cycle there;
and that he is telling lies because of his
family terms with deceased's family.

10. PW-3 (Sukhvinder Singh). He
stated that he is a neighbour of PW-4 and is
on visiting terms with PW-4 and that he knew
Sanjay Singh @ Bhooray since before the
incident. He stated that Sanjay Singh had
been on visiting terms with PW-4. PW-3
stated that about quarter to two years before,
the deceased had left by saying that he is
going to Bhooray's house. On 05 April, 2003
PW-4 told him that Bhooray had made a call
demanding Rs.2,00,000/- for release of
Parminder. On this information, PW-3, PW4, Kashmir Singh and Sukhveer Singh took
PW-2's taxi to go to Majhgawa. When they
met
Bhooray
there,
Bhooray's
family
members were also there. Bhooray told them
that day before yesterday, Parminder (the
deceased) had come; yesterday, they had
lunch at Rautapur with Bare and Sompal.
Bhooray had also told them that the deceased
was with them till lunch and, thereafter,
where he went, he does not know. After
getting this information, PW-4 along with
PW-3 and others went to P.S. Bilsanda,
where PW-4 informed the Station Officer
about his son having gone missing. There, the
Station Officer took a note on a plain paper
but did not record the information. Station
Officer, thereafter, called Bhooray at the
police station and assured the complainant
party that he would enquire from Bhooray
and they may go. Thereafter, the complainant
party left the police station. PW-3 stated that
PW-4 had informed him regarding receipt of
a fresh call on 16.04.2003 from Bhooray for
making arrangements of the ransom amount
to secure release of his son and, thereafter,
again,
ransom
call
was
received
on
18.04.2003, reducing the ransom amount
from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.50,000/-. PW-3
stated that upon getting this information from
PW-4, after taking Rs.50,000/-, PW-3 and
PW-4 along with Kashmir Singh and
Harjinder Singh went to Madna Chauraha
(the place where the cash was to be delivered
as per the phone call) and reached there
between 4-5 pm; where they met Bhooray
and one unknown person, who, according to
Bhooray, was Bhooray's maternal uncle. PW3 stated that Bhooray was delivered
Rs.50,000/-, after which, Bhooray requested
them to wait for 20 minutes to enable him to
come
with
Parminder
but,
thereafter,
Bhooray did not return even though they
waited for two hours; and few days later,
Parminder's body was recovered, which he
saw.

During cross-examination, PW3 stated that PW-4 i.e. deceased's father is
522 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
his real elder brother and that PW-3's house
is near PW-4's house. In respect of the time
when they left for Majhgawa, PW-3 stated
that they left for Majhgawa between 1-1.30
pm and they reached Majhgawa by about 5
pm. Before reaching Jamuniya, they visited
Pooranpur. At Pooranpur, they took the
vehicle of PW-2 to go to Majhgawa. He
denied the suggestion that he has a Maruti
car. PW-3 stated that PW-4's elder son did
not own a four wheeler at the time of the
incident. PW-3 also stated that he left
Pooranpur by about 2 pm. On further crossexamination, PW-3 stated that he learnt
about
Parminder
Singh
having
gone
missing for the first time on 05.04.2003
when PW-4 had told him that they had to
go to Majhgawa as Parminder was in the
custody of Bhooray. He stated that the I.O.
had interrogated him about 4-6 days after
Parminder had left. Immediately thereafter,
he clarified by stating that he is not sure
whether his statement was taken after 2
days, or 4 days, or 6 days, but was taken for
sure within 10 days. Whereafter, he did not
meet the I.O.

In respect of Bhooray, PW-3
stated that Bhooray used to visit Parminder
very often and therefore, he knows
Bhooray. PW-3 also stated that he knows
Bare and Sompal.

In respect of his visit to the house
of Bhooray at Majhgawa, PW-3 stated that
on their visit there, they enquired from
Sanjay for about 20-25 minutes; Bhooray
@ Sanjay had told them that till a day
before, Parminder was with Bhooray and
had had his meal with him. Bhooray,
however, claimed that he has no knowledge
of Parminder's current whereabouts. PW-3
stated that after visiting Sanjay's house at
Majhgawa, they all went straight to the
police station at Bilsanda and arrived there
by about 5.30 pm. Except Ravi (PW-2), all
had entered the police station and they
orally informed the Station House Officer
there. Within next 20 minutes, the Station
House Officer had called Sanjay at the
police station and till arrival of Sanjay at
the police station, they were there.

In respect of the incident of
18.04.2003, PW-3 stated that he, Kashmir
Singh, Nirmol Singh (PW-4) and Harjinder
Singh went to Madnapur on 18.04.2003 in
Maruti van of Harjinder Singh. He added
that
they
went
to
Madnapur
via
Shahjahanpur;
that
before
going
to
Madnapur, they had not informed the
police; that when they reached there, they
asked Bhooray about Parminder; Bhooray
told that if the money is delivered, he
would ensure the release of Parminder
within 20 minutes. PW-3 stated that neither
he nor his men insisted for release of
Parminder before taking the money. On
being questioned as to why they did not
capture Bhooray and his companion at that
time, PW-3 stated that they had no idea that
Bhooray would violate the promise as they
believed in Bhooray. PW-3 stated that after
delivery of money, they all returned
straight from Madnapur to their house and
they did not consider it necessary to inform
the police. PW-3 also stated that he does
not know whether PW-4 had gone in search
of Parminder after visiting Madnapur. PW3 stated that he does not remember whether
any information was given on a plain paper
about Bhooray at police station Bilsanda,
though he remembers that the S.O. had
called Bhooray to the police station and had
told them that he would inquire from
Bhooray.

In respect of Nirmol Singh (PW4), PW-3 stated that Nirmol Singh had
worked in films. PW-3 stated that Sukhvir
6 All. Sanjay Singh @ Bhooray Vs. State of U.P.
523
Singh and Bunty are sons of Nirmol Singh
(PW-4). He stated that he does not know
whether those sons of PW-4 are involved in
extremist
activity.
He
denied
the
suggestions that Sukhvir and Bunty were
detained under TADA; that he is telling lies
because of his relationship with Nirmol
Singh (PW-4); that he did not go to
Madnapur and Majhgawa; that no money
was paid at Madnapur; that no demand for
money was made; and that he and Nirmol
Singh have a four wheeler.

PW-3 was also cross-examined
on behalf of Bare and Sompal. In his cross
examination on their behalf, he stated that
the distance between Majhgawa and
Bilsanda is of 10 minutes. The I.O. had
come to his house to investigate. His
statement was recorded at his house by the
I.O. He had received knowledge that the
body had been hidden in the canal. He
denied the suggestion that he is telling lies.

11. PW-4 (Nirmol Singh). PW-4 is
the father of the deceased. He stated that on
01.04.2003 Sanjay Singh @ Bhooray came
to his house and invited Parminder Singh
(the
deceased)
to
Majhgawa.
On
03.04.2003,
the
deceased
went
to
Pooranpur on a cycle. He parked his cycle
at Arvind Cycle Shop and told Arvind that
he is going to Majhgawa to the house of
Sanjay Singh @ Bhooray and would return
by evening. Parminder Singh, thereafter,
did not return. On 05.04.2003, he received
a ransom call demanding Rs.2,00,000/- for
release of Parminder Singh. The ransom
call was in the voice of Sanjay Singh @
Bhooray. Thereafter, PW-4, Sukhvinder,
Kashmir Singh and Sukhvir Singh along
with Ravi went to Bhooray's house. There,
they met Bhooray and his family. On
inquiry about Parminder (the deceased),
Bhooray and his family admitted that
Parminder had come and on 04.04.2003
Parminder had lunch with Sompal, Bare,
Vipin and Sanjay but they did not disclose
his current whereabouts. PW-4 stated that
since no useful information was given by
Bhooray regarding the whereabouts of
Parminder, PW-4 went to P.S. Bilsanda and
informed the Station Officer regarding his
son having gone missing. But his report
was not written. However, the S.O. called
Bhooray to inquire from him. Thereafter,
on 16.04.2003, he received a call to arrange
for Rs.2,00,000/- for release of Parminder.
On 18.04.2003, another phone call came to
bring Rs.50,000/- for release of Parminder.
On this call, PW-4, Sukhvinder Singh,
Kashmir Singh and Harjinder Singh went
to Madnapur Chauraha with Rs.50,000/-.
There they found Sanjay Singh @ Bhooray
with his maternal uncle Vijay Kumar Singh
alias Chhotey Lalla. When they were
inquired about Parminder Singh, they
stated that Rs.50,000/- may be given to
them and within 20 minutes, they will
come with Parminder. PW-4 stated that
they gave the money to them and waited,
but they did not return and, therefore, PW-4
and others returned back. After stating as
above, PW-4 added that Sanjay Singh @
Bhooray's
cousin,
Manju,
widow
of
Pramod, a resident of Pooranpur, had
relations with Parminder (the deceased);
Parminder used to visit her house; that
Sanjay Singh and his family were not
appreciative of that relationship and,
therefore,
it
appears, Parminder was
abducted and killed. PW-4 added that
Parminder Singh's right arm was amputated
from below the elbow joint. PW-4 alleged
that after killing Parminder, the accused
cheated him of Rs.50,000/-. PW-4 stated
that on 02.05.2003 he gave application to
the Superintendent of Police. The written
report was exhibited as Ex. Ka-1. PW-4
stated that when the body of Parminder was
524 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
being dug out by Bhooray and two
constables from the canal, then Bhooray
had pointed out that this is the body of
Parminder. He stated that he recognised the
body on the basis of body structure and the
amputated hand. PW-4 stated that the
inquest was conducted in his presence. The
inquest report (Ex. Ka-2) was exhibited.
PW-4 stated that he knew all the accused
from before as they used to visit his house.
He also stated that about 14 months before,
he received a phone call. The caller stated
that he is elder brother of Sompal and that
Sompal wants to meet him in jail. He stated
that he went to jail to meet Sompal, where
Sompal stated that if he is exonerated, he
would be ready to give evidence as a
witness. He also stated that Sompal had
admitted his guilt.

During his cross examination at
the instance of accused Sompal, PW-4
stated that he went to jail to meet Sompal
after about 14 months of the recovery of his
son's body. After stating that, PW-4 stated
that it must be 10 months after recovery of
the body. He denied the suggestion that he
never visited the jail to meet Sompal there.

In his cross-examination at the
instance of accused Sanjay Singh @
Bhooray, PW-4 stated that he has 22 acres
of land. He has a motorcycle but no car. He
stated that for going to Pooranpur one has
to catch a bus from Ghunghchihai.
Ghunghchihai is about 5 km from his house
and from Ghunghchihai to Pooranpur it is
12 kms. He stated that if one has no
personal conveyance, one can take bus,
tempo, etc. There is a short cut route also
via Jamuniya Sherpur to go to Pooranpur.
The short cut route is 10-11 kms. He denied
the suggestion that the short cut route is
also 20-22 kms. He also denied the
suggestion that in between Jamuniya and
Pooranpur, there is jungle. PW-4 stated that
when the deceased had left his house, it
must have been 8 or 9 am in the morning.
Deceased had left the house after telling
PW-4 that he is going to Sanjay Singh @
Bhooray's house at Majhgawa. PW-4 stated
that the distance between Pooranpur and
Majhgawa is 53 kms and to go to
Majhgawa from Pooranpur one has to go
first to Ghunghchihai. There is also a
straight
rasta
from
Ghunghchihai
to
Majhgawa which is about 41 kms. PW-4
stated that he did not ask his son to go on a
motorcycle. He stated that at that time
probably the motorcycle was not there. He
stated that when his son went away and did
not return that night, or even next night, he
did not have any anxiety as earlier also he
used to visit Sanjay Singh's house and used
to stay there for 3-4 days and Sanjay Singh
used to visit his house and used to stay for
3-4 days. He stated that he got disturbed
only after receipt of ransom call on the
third day. He stated that on receipt of
ransom call, he made no attempt to inform
the police immediately. Rather, they took
the vehicle of Azad to go to Bhooray's
house
where
Bhooray
admitted
that
Parminder had come and that Parminder,
Bhooray, Vipin and Sompal all had lunch
at Rautapur at Sompal's place.

On further cross-examination,
he stated that when he had visited
Bhooray's house after receipt of ransom
call, he saw Bhooray and his family
members. He enquired from them but not
from the villagers. He also stated that he
had not enquired from the family members
of Sompal. He stated that he remained at
Majhgawa for 15-20 minutes and while
they were there, neither Bhooray nor his
family members made any attempt to run
away but they did not give information
regarding the whereabouts of Parminder.
6 All. Sanjay Singh @ Bhooray Vs. State of U.P.
525
Therefore, he had given information on a
plain paper to S.O. Bilsanda with regard to
the ransom call and had also orally
informed S.O., Bilsanda about that. He then
reiterated that he had not given any written
application. PW-4, however, clarified that
the police had gone to call Bhooray and
had brought him to the police station. But,
in his presence, Bhooray was not inquired.
Rather, S.O. told PW-4 that he will enquire.
PW-4 stated that on 08.04.2003 when he
visited P.S. Bilsanda again, he did not meet
Bhooray there. PW-4 admitted that his visit
to P.S. Bilsanda on 08.04.2003 has not
been mentioned in his written report
addressed to the Superintendent of Police.
PW-4 denied the suggestion that this was
stated for the first time in court. PW-4
stated that after 05.04.2003 they had visited
Bhooray's house 2-3 times. Later, he
corrected it by stating that he visited the
house two times. PW-4 stated that he had
requested Bhooray to search out his son.
Bhooray assured that he is searching for
Parminder and as soon as he is able to find
him, he would give information.

During cross-examination, PW-4
stated that on 16.04.2003 he received
ransom call from Bhooray, demanding
Rs.2,00,000/- for release of Parminder.
PW-4 stated that though this fact was not
disclosed by him in his written application
but he told it orally to the I.O. but if the
I.O. had not noted it, he cannot tell the
reason for the same. He denied the
suggestion that this statement is made for
the first time in court as a result of tutoring.
He stated that on receipt of phone call on
16.04.2003, he filed no complaint at the
police station. He added that he did not
make a complaint because he wanted to
have his son back alive and was worried
that if he would make a complaint to the
police or authorities, the abductors may kill
his son. He stated that he was arranging for
the money and when he had given the
application, he thought that his son was
alive. PW-4 added that on 18.04.2003
Bhooray called him to ask as to how much
money PW-4 could arrange. When, PW-4
stated that he could arrange Rs.50,000/-
only, Bhooray said that PW-4 should come
with Rs.50,000/- at Madanpura Chauraha
near
Jalalabad.
PW-4
stated
that
Madnapura is about 150 kms away from his
house. It would take 4 to 5 hours to reach
there on a bus. PW-4, thereafter, quickly
corrected himself by stating that he took his
own car and it took him 4-5 hours. On a
question
as
to
whether
in
between
Shahjahanpur to Madnapur he crossed any
police station, he stated that he does not
remember clearly but a factory was noticed
by him. He stated that the distance between
Shahjahanpur and Madnapur was covered
in one and a half hour and by the time they
could reach there, it was 4-5 pm. PW-4
stated that at Madnapur Chauraha, he saw
Sanjay Singh @ Bhooray and Vijay Kumar
Singh @ Chootey Lalla standing at the
Chauraha. He stated that when he gave the
money, he did not insist Bhooray to show
his son first, because he believed that on
payment of money his son would be
released therefore, he did not even request
the other person accompanying Sanjay to
wait there, till his son was released. PW-4
stated that he himself waited there for about
two hours, but when no one returned, as it
was getting dark, he returned back. Next
day, he did not go to Majhgawa under the
belief that Parminder may be released by
about night. PW-4 added that he did not go
to Majhgawa after 18.04.2003 because he
had no hope of help from the Station
Officer (S.O.) Bilsanda. He stated that he
tried to meet the S.O. two or three times but
he could not meet him. He stated that he
went to the Superintendent of Police on
526 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
22.04.2003 and 28.04.2003 but he did not
meet him. He stated that he did not give
any written application on either of those
two
days.
He
stated
that
between
23.04.2003 and 28.04.2003 neither he met
the commanding officer nor he gave
application in his office. He also stated that
he did not give any application by
registered post to DIG or IG. He clarified
that by stating that till 02.05.2003 he met
no other officer to lodge complaint. He
admitted that in his written application
given on 02.05.2003 to the Superintendent
of Police, he made no mention that he had
visited his office twice but he could not
meet him. He admitted that in his
application he had not mentioned the phone
number on which he received the phone
call. He admitted that he disclosed the
name of Bhooray's Mama in the court for
the first time and that before this he never
made any disclosure about Bhooray's
Mama.

On further cross-examination in
respect of relationship of Manju and Sanjay
Singh @ Bhooray, PW-4 stated that Manju
is not sister, but a cousin, of Sanjay.