g. Whether Rambaran Singh had paid an amount of Rs. 6 lacs by way of ransom to any body?

Rambaran (P.W.1) has stated in para 6 of his evidence that he received a phone call on his mobile that one person would meet him in Grain Market Dabra, and his identity was also told and was directed to handover the money to him. Accordingly, he paid the amount of Ransom to the said person. Although the appellants have not cross examined this witness on this issue, but in view of the surrounding circumstances, it has become necessary to check the authenticity of this statement. The case diary statement of Rambaran (P.W.1) was recorded on 27-10-2006, and in the said statement there is no mention of giving any amount of ransom. Thus, it is clear that this witness might have given the amount after 27-10-2006. But why this witness did not inform the police about the demand of ransom and handing over of the amount to a person in Grain Market, Dabra, is a question which has remained unanswered. When the witnesses had already approached the police on 27-10-2006, then it was expected that they would have taken police in confidence with regard to demand of ransom and the fact that one person would come to collect the ransom amount. Further more, Ramdutt (P.W.4) has stated in para 4 that a total amount of Rs. 10 lacs was paid to a person at Dabra Grain Market, whereas Rambaran (P.W.1) has stated that an amount of Rs. 6 lacs was given at Grain Market, Dabra. Rambaran (P.W.1) also does not speak about the presence of Ramdutt (P.W.4) at the time of handing over of the ransom amount. Further, it appears that the allegation of giving ransom amount was made for the first time in the Court. Ramdutt (P.W.4) has further admitted in para 7 of his cross examination that the fact of handing over the ransom amount is being narrated by him for the first time in the Court. Further, there is nothing on record, that on what date, Rambaran (P.W.1) received the phone call for payment of ransom amount. There is nothing on record to show that on what date the ransom amount was paid. There is nothing on record to clarify that, when Rambaran (P.W.1) and Ramdutt (P.W.4) had already approached the police on 27-10-2006, then why the fact of demand of ransom and handing over the ransom amount to one person at Grain Market, Dabra was not told to the police. When Rambaran (P.W.1) had received a telephonic call for payment of ransom amount, then why he did not inform the police, has not been clarified by him. Even it has not been clarified by these witnesses, that from where the amount of Rs. 6 lacs or 10 lacs were arranged. There is nothing on record to show that whether Rambaran (P.W.1) and Ramdutt (P.W. 4) were having the amount in their own house or they had withdrawn the same from bank account. No details of bank account have been produced. If these witnesses had taken money from somebody else, then no one has been examined to prove that he had given money either to Rambaran (P.W.1) or Ramdutt (P.W.4). Surprisingly, Dharam Singh, the father of Jitendra (P.W.3) is alive and still he has not entered into witness box with regard to payment of ransom amount. There is a reason for Dharam Singh for not entering in the witness box. The said reason shall be considered in the following paragraphs. But one thing is clear, that where any ransom amount is required to be paid, then it would be the father of abductee who would make arrangements of the money, but in the present case, that aspect is completely silent. Thus, in considered opinion of this Court, the prosecution has failed to prove that Rambaran (P.W.1) or Ramdutt (P.W.4) had paid any ransom amount to anybody.

h. Whether the abductees Praveen and Jitendra were released by the kidnappers ?

This Court has already come to a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove that Gappe had taken away the abductees and has also come to a conclusion that no demand of ransom has been proved and even the fact of payment of ransom amount has also not been proved, therefore, there is no question of release of abductees from the captivity of the accused persons. Further, according to D.J. Rai (P.W.8) as well as Praveen (P.W.2), after the release, the abductees were sent for medical examination, however, their M.L.C. reports have not been proved, to show that whether they were really sent for medical examination or not? Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the abductees Praveen (P.W.2) and Jitendra (P.W.3) came back to their house on 6-11-2006 after they were released by the accused persons.

i. Whether the appellants have been falsely implicated in the matter?

It is the case of the appellant Gappe, that one person known as Pappu was killed and Dharam Singh, the father of Jitendra (P.W.3) was also an accused. In the said case, Smt.

Longshree, the grand mother of the appellant Gappe, was the eye witness and Dharam Singh and his family members were pressurizing Smt. Longshri to enter into compromise and since, She did not agree to that, therefore, Gappe he has been falsely implicated. In order to establish the defence, the appellant Gappe has placed the copy of Charge sheet, F.I.R., and case diary statement of Smt. Longshri, on record, as Ex.

D.5, D.6 and D.7. Jitendra (P.W.3) has admitted in para 18 of his cross examination that his father Dharam Singh had remained in jail in a murder case and Smt. Longshri, the grand mother of the appellant Gappu was a witness in the said case.

D.J. Rai (P.W.8) has admitted in para 11 of his cross examination that during investigation, he had come to know that there is an old enmity between the families of Rambaran and Gappe, and father of Jitendra, namely Dharam Singh is an accused of killing one person who is the servant of Ramprakash. Since, Dharam Singh was an accused in a murder case, and the grand mother of Gappe was an eye witness, therefore, the possibility of false implication of the appellant Gappe is also not ruled out. Enmity is a double edged weapon. Where enmity provides a ground for falsely implicating a person, but at the same time, it provides a motive for committing an offence. Thus, it has to be considered in the light of facts and circumstances of each case, that whether a person has been falsely implicated because of enmity or the offence has been committed because of enmity. In the present case, it appears that since, Dharam Singh was an accused in a case of murder, and the grand mother of the appellant Gappe was an eye witness and since, the family of Gappe had not agreed for entering into a compromise, therefore, it appears that the appellant Gappe has been falsely implicated in the matter.

23. If a matter is considered from another angle, then there is some motive or reason for the police to concoct a story. According to Praveen (P.W.2) when he came back to his house, the police had recorded their statements and took them to a place where the incident had taken place and when they reached there, he found that Lalla and Munesh were sleeping and thereafter they were killed by Police. Thus, it appears that an encounter is alleged to have taken place in which the police had killed two persons. Whether it was a fake encounter or was a genuine encounter is not a subject matter of this appeal, however, the possibility of concocting the story by the police is also not ruled out.