C. Whether Rambaran Singh went to Itawah jail and met with Appellant Raju @ Ganga Singh?
Rambaran Singh (P.W.1) has stated that on 24-10-2006, at about 10 A.M., he received a letter Ex. P.1 and immediately after 30 minutes, he went to Itawah Jail by motor cycle. He reached Jail at about 11:30 A.M. where he was told that the permission is granted to visitors till 11 A.M. only. He did not make any application for meeting with Raju and by giving bribe to the jail authorities, he met with Appellant Raju @ Ganga Singh. No entry was made in any register. He met with Raju @ Ganga who said that he will be required to pay Rs. 6 lacs for getting the children released. He also threatened that in case, if the offer is acceptable to this witness, only then he should express his willingness, otherwise, he may refuse it. However, no other facts were stated by this witness. In cross examination, this witness further admitted that he had gone along with his nephew.
Shailendra (P.W. 11) has stated that at the time of meeting, one T-shirt of Praveen was given to these witnesses, i.e., Shailendra and Rambaran. However, Rambaran (P.W.1) has not stated that the appellant Raju had ever given any T22 CRA Nos.142/2008 & 470/2008 shirt of Praveen in jail. Thus, the story created by prosecution in this regard is false and concocted.
Shailendra (P.W.11) has stated in para 8 of his cross examination, that he and his uncle [Rambaran (P.W.1)], left for Itawah by bus at 8 in the morning of 24-10-2006, whereas Rambaran (P.W.1) has stated that he had received the letter at around 10 A.M. and 30 minutes thereafter, they left for Itawah by motor cycle. Shailendra (P.W.11) has further stated that they alighted the bus at Shastri square, Itwah and went to jail by walking. They reached jail at 10:30 A.M. and went inside the jail at about 10:45 A.M. Whereas Rambaran (P.W.1) has stated that as he reached the jail at about 11:30 A.M., and since, the slips are issued to the visitors till 11 A.M. only, therefore, they had met with Raju after giving bribe to the jail authorities, but on the contrary, according to Shailendra (P.W.11), they had already reached Jail at around 10:30 A.M. and went inside the jail at around 10:45 A.M. Thus, it is clear that Shailendra (P.W.11) and Rambaran (P.W.1) had reached Jail well within the visiting hours and had also entered inside the jail, well within visiting hours, then there was no reason for them to bribe the jail authorities, in order to get entry in the jail. They could have entered inside the jail after obtaining due permission and also after making entry in the jail register. Nathu Singh (D.W.2) has stated that meeting of an outsider with a prisoner is not permissible without making due entry in the register and Rambaran (P.W.1) had not met with Raju on 24-10-2006. Thus, if the evidence of Rambaran (P.W.1), Shailendra (P.W.11) and Nathu Singh (D.W.2) are considered, then it is clear that the story of meeting Raju in Itawah jail on 24-10-2006, is a concocted story and the prosecution has failed to prove that Rambaran (P.W.1) and Shailendra (P.W.11) had met with Raju on 24-10-2006, in Itawah Jail.
d. Whether any demand of ransom was made by Appellant Raju @ Ganga Singh?
As the prosecution has failed to prove that Rambaran Singh (P.W.1) had met with the appellant Raju @ Ganga Singh in Itawah jail on 24-10-2006, then the natural consequence would be that the prosecution has failed to prove the demand of ransom of Rs. 6 lacs by appellant Raju @ Ganga Singh in Itawah Jail from Rambaran (P.W.1).
e. Whether any clothes of the abductess were shown or given to Rambaran Singh by Appellant Raju @ Ganga Singh in the jail and whether any T-shirt was recovered from the appellant Raju @ Ganga Singh?
Shailendra (P.W. 11) has stated that at the time of meeting, one T-shirt of Praveen was given to these witnesses, i.e., Shailendra and Rambaran. In cross examination, it was clarified by this witness, that the T-shirt of Praveeen was given to them in the jail itself. Thus, the allegation made by this witness is that in order to prove the authenticity of claim that the children are in the captivity of Raju, a T-Shirt of Praveen was also given to them. It was also stated by this witness in para 5 of his evidence that the T-shirt was handed over to the police about 2 days thereafter. Whereas Rambaran (P.W.1) does not speak about giving of T-shirt of Praveen to him in the jail. Further according to the prosecution, the T-shirt was seized on 3-11-2006, on production of same by appellant Raju, from a place situated under a small bridge. The said Tshirt was seized vide seizure memo Ex. P.16. Further, Shailendra (P.W.11) has stated in para 6 of his evidence that the T-shirt which was given by Raju to Rambaran and the TShirt which was seized by seizure memo Ex. P.16 are one and the same. He has further stated in para 7 of his evidence, that on the date of seizure of T-shirt from the bridge, Raju was not present and the T-shirt was not seized from possession of Raju. He has further stated in para 6 of his evidence that in fact T-shirt was handed over by Rambaran (P.W.1) to the police. Thus, it is clear that recovery of T-shirt belonging to Praveen, at the instance of Raju is nothing but a concocted story. Further, if the evidence of Shailendra (P.W.11) is concerned, then it is clear that Raju was detained in Itawah jail, then how he came in possession of T-shirt of Praveen, has also not been explained by prosecution. The prosecution must have produced the record of Itawah jail, to show that on what date and by whom, the said T-shirt was brought in Itawah Jail and how, the appellant Raju came in possession of the said Tshirt. As the appellant Raju was detained in Itawah jail, therefore, it was not possible for him to handover the said Tshirt to Rambaran (P.W.1) and further Rambaran (P.W.1) has not stated that the appellant Raju had ever given any T-shirt of Praveen in jail. Thus, the story created by prosecution in this regard is false and concocted. Further, the prosecution has not collected any evidence to show as to how, the appellant Raju @ Ganga Singh came to know that the children of Rambaran (P.W.1) have been kidnapped. The prosecution should have collected the visitors’ register of Itawah Jail, to find out that who were the persons, who had met with the appellant Raju @ Ganga Singh? There is nothing on record to show that with whom, the appellant Raju @ Ganga Singh had hatched conspiracy to kidnap Praveen (P.W.2) and Jitendra (P.W.3).