Previous 3 / 35 Next

3 ‘In reference (CRRFC-1 of 2017)’. Criminal Appeal No. 795 of 2017 was filed by Om Prakash Yadav against the dismissal of Criminal Appeal No. 83 of 2017. 4. To establish its case, the prosecution had examined 17 witnesses before the Trial Court and marked 45 exhibits. The defence examined 3 witnesses and adduced 14 exhibits in evidence. 5. In brief, the prosecution’s case is as follows: Rajwant Kaur (PW- 1), Ajit Pal’s mother, received a substantial sum of money upon sale of some property by her father. This sale was effected on 22.03.2013 but prior to that, a sum of ₹10 lakhs was received by her in cash. On the date of registration of the sale deed, a sum of ₹27.5 lakhs was received by cheque, in the name of her father. The balance amount was also received in cash on the same day. Out of the ₹10 lakhs received by her, PW-1 created a fixed deposit for ₹9 lakhs and ₹1 lakh was kept in her account. This information was in the knowledge of Om Prakash Yadav, a neighbour, and his entire family. While so, on 26.03.2013, PW-1’s son, Ajit Pal, left the house at 9 o’clock in the night to see the ‘Holika’ and did not return. PW-1 lodged a ‘missing person’ report (Ex. P1) at Gorakhpur Police Station on 27.03.2013 at 16:15 hours. On 28.03.2013, PW-1’s brother, Amarjeet Singh @ Mitthu (PW-2), and Om Prakash Yadav went to the Gurudwara in Gwarighat to search for the boy. They did not find him there but while they were returning, PW-2 received a call on his mobile phone from mobile number 8305620342. The caller said - “I am Khan speaking, Bobby is with me. Send me 50 lakh rupees.” PW-2 went to

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Rajesh Yadav

CASE BRIEF

Jurisdiction

India

Nationalities

Indian

Case Title: Rajesh and Ors v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Age at Offence: 18

Age Group at Offence: Adult (18 to 59)

Gender: Male

Religious Group at Offence: Hindu

Jurisdiction - Geolocation

Latitude: 20.5937

Longitude: 78.9629

Jurisdiction - Geolocation (linked CASE BRIEF): India

Contributing TRP Partner

The Square Circle Clinic (India)

Latest Country's Death Penalty Status

Retentionist

Case Current Status: Closed: Acquitted

Year when sentenced to Death Row: 2010s: 2016

Method of Execution: Hanging

Rights Allegedly Violated

Fair Trial and Due Process: Fair investigation & fair disclosure

Nature of Offences for Death Penalty

Kidnapping for Ransom
Murder: Single Victim

Expert Evidence

Forensic/Medical evidence: Autopsy/Post mortem
Forensic/Medical evidence: DNA/Serology/Biology

Case Background (300 words max): The case against the three accused persons Rajesh Yadev, Raja Yadav and Om Prakash Yadav is for kidnapping for ransom and murder of a minor boy of 15 years old. While Rajesh and Raja were sentenced to death, Om Prakash was sentenced to life imprisonment. The circumstances against the accused were: call seeking ransom made from a mobile handset that was also used by a number registered to the accused, discovery of the body of the deceased and the murder on the basis of the confession of the accused, discovery of the accused's blood stained clothes worn at the time of the offence found on the basis of the confession of the accused, hair found in hand of the deceased and evidence of the victim being last seen with two of the accused The Supreme Court, on appeal, acquitted all three accused persons on 21.09.23, on the grounds that there were several gaps in the investigation and the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Defence Arguments (200 words max.): There were several inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution case regarding the time when the deceased went missing, the time when the accused persons were taken into custody and the reason for not naming accused Om Prakash in the first information report. The defence also raised concerns regarding the the recovery of the deceased body and the murder weapon. With respect to the DNA evidence, the defence raised concerns regarding the chain of custody of the hair allegedly found in the hands of the deceased.

Judgement with Headnotes (200 words max): The Supreme Court acquitted the three accused noting the several discrepancies in the prosecution's case regarding the time that the deceased went missing and the circumstances that led to the apprehension of the accused. The Court held that the witnesses to the recovery of the deceased's body have not described how the body was found and whether it was at the instance of the accused, as claimed by the prosecution. Notably, the Court also questioned the lack of investigation into the person in whose name the phone number from which the ransom calls were registered. While concluding, the court expressed concerns that the trial court and high court imposed the death sentence in a such a case and failed to notice the serious concerns with the evidence. Further, it suggested the creation of a consistent and mandatory code of investigation for the police in the interest of justice.

Legal Representation Received

Second Appeal: Pro bono
Appeal: Unknown
Trial: Unknown
Pre-trial: Unknown

Legislation Related to the Offence(s): Sections 302, 364A read with 120-B Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

Judicial Precedents: C. Chenga Reddy and others v. State of A.P, Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy vs. State of A.P, Majenderan Langeswaran vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, Hanumant vs. State of Madhya Pradesh,Bodhraj alias Bodha and others vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir, State of Karnataka vs. David Rozario and another,Ashish Jain vs. Makrand Singh and others, Boby vs. State of Kerala, Pulukuri Kotayya vs. King Emperor, Yakub Abdul Razak Memon vs. State of Maharashtra through CBI, Bombay,Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, Khet Singh vs. Union of India, Manoj and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh