b. Whether any letters written by Praveen and Jitendra were actually received by Rambaran Singh on 24-10- 2006?
It is the case of the prosecution, that on 23-10-2006, Rambaran Singh, father of Praveen, received a telephonic call on his mobile and the caller introduced himself as Satpal Lodhi and informed that his children are in his captivity. At about 2:45-3:00 P.M., another phone call was recieved and the caller enquired that whether this witness has received his letter or not? By that time, this witness had not received any letter. On 24-10-2006, at about 10 A.M., this witness received a letter in which it was mentioned that this witness should go to Itawah Jail and should meet with Raju who would tell them about the whereabouts of this children. The letter is Ex. P.1 and the envelop is Ex. P.2. On the same day, this witness went to Itawah jail and met with Raju who demanded Rs. 6 lacs and assured that his children would come back. This witness also identified Raju in the Court. When this witness expressed his inability to pay such a huge amount, then it was replied by Raju, that it is upto this witness either to accept his offer or not? It was replied by this witness that he has no other option but to accept the offer. Thereafter, he received another registered envelope containing two letters, one was written by Praveen (P.W.2) and another was written by Jitendra (P.W.3). These letters are Ex.P.4 and P.5 and the envelope is Ex. P.3. Thereafter, this witness lodged written report which is Ex. P.6.
If the written report Ex. P.6 is considered, then it would be clear that it was made on 24-10-2006 and was merely containing an information of Gum Insaan. There was no mention in the said report, that he had received a letter and had met with Raju in Itawah Jail. A specific question was put to this witness, as to why he did not mention about his meeting with Raju in Itawah Jail in his written complaint Ex. P.6, then in para 14 of his cross examination, it was replied by this witness, that since, his children were hostages with the accused persons, therefore, he was scared of their lives so the fact of meeting with Raju was not mentioned in the written complaint. Whether, this explanation given by this witness is worth reliance or not, would be considered later on. However, the centripetal question is that although this witness has stated that he had received the first letter Ex. P.6 on 24-10- 2006 and thereafter, he went to Itawah Jail on 24-10-2006 itself and met with Raju, but this fact is not mentioned in written complaint Ex. P.6. Thus, non-mentioning of the receipt of letter on 24-10-2006 and meeting with Raju in written complaint Ex. P.6, creates a doubt that whether any letter was really received by this witness or not?
The next question would be that whether the explanation given by this witness that since, he was scared of lives of the abductees, therefore, he did not mention the fact of receipt of letter and meeting with Raju, is plausible or not?
According to the prosecution, Rambaran Singh (P.W.1) handed over the letter Ex. P.1 to the police on 27-10-2006 vide seizure memo Ex. P.8, and accordingly, a F.I.R. was lodged by the police against Gappe, Raju and Satpal Lodhi on 27-10-2006 itself.
From the prosecution case itself, it is clear that nothing had transpired between 24-10-2006 and 27-10-2006, which might have persuaded this witness to approach the police and handover the letter Ex.P.1 to the police. When this circumstance was put by this Court, to the Public Prosecutor, seeking explanation, then it was replied that since, Rambaran (P.W.1) had received two more letters on either 25 or 26-10- 2006, therefore, this witness was left with no other option but to inform the police about the letter and his meeting with Raju, as he was now more or less interested in saving the lives of the abductees. The explanation given by the Public Prosecution appeared to be very impressive, but on deeper scrutiny of the evidence, the same was found without any basis and was contrary to record.
Rambaran (P.W.1) in para 5 of his Examination-in-chief has stated that after coming back from Itawah Jail, he received two more letters by speed post and accordingly, he lodged the report which is Ex. P.6.
This part of evidence of Rambaran (P.W.1) gives a deep dent to the prosecution story. Written report Ex. P.6 submitted by this witness, merely speaks about Gum insaan report, but does not speak about receipt of any letter or meeting with Raju. If the evidence of this witness is considered, then according to this witness, he had received all the three letters i.e., Ex. P.1, Ex. P.4 and P.5, prior to lodging of report Ex. P.6, whereas in para 17 of his cross examination, this witness has stated that he had received the letters Ex.P.4 and P.5, either on 25th or 26th of October 2006 whereas written report Ex. P.6 was lodged on 24th October 2006. Further, this witness has stated that on the next date of receiving these letters i.e., Ex. P.4 and P.5, the same were handed over to the police. Thus, according to this witness, these two letters were handed over to the police either on 26th or 27th of October 2006, whereas according to investigating officer D.J. Rai (P.W.8), these two letters i.e., Ex. P.4 and P.5 were brought by Rambaran on 2-11-2006 and were seized vide seizure memo Ex. P.8. Thus, if the seizure memo Ex. P.8 is considered, then it is clear that two letters Ex. P. 4 and P.5 were made available by Rambaran to the police on 2-11-2006, whereas Rambaran (P.W.1) has stated at one place that written report, Ex. P.1 was lodged on 24-10-2006, after receiving all the three letters, whereas in his cross examination, this witness has stated that letters Ex. P.4 and P.5 were received either on 25th or 26th October 2006 and the same were handed over to the police on the next date, whereas according to seizure memo Ex. P.8, the said letters i.e., Ex. P.4 and P.5 were seized by the police on 2- 11-2006.
Thus, it is clear that the story of receiving three letters does not appear to be true, and the prosecution has failed to prove that any letter was received by Rambaran (P.W.1) on 24-10-2006.