Delhi District Court
State vs 1. Manoj Kumar S/O Sh. Om Prakash Vijay on 29 August, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAMESH KUMAR - II,
LD. ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 0I : North East /
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI.
FIR No. 282/2003
State Vs 1. Manoj Kumar s/o Sh. Om Prakash Vijay
Singh, r/o D748, Gali No.8, Ashok
Nagar, Delhi.
2. Naresh @ Sonu s/o Sh. Bhagwan, r/o D
504/8, Gali NO.4, Ashok Nagar, Delhi.
3. Rajiv s/o Sh. Bhagwan, r/o D504/8, Gali
No.4, Ashok Nagar, Delhi.
Police Station M.S. Park
Under Section 363/120B IPC
ORDER ON THE POINT OF SENTENCE
29.08.2011
Pre: Ld. APP for the state.
Convict persons are in JC.
Sh. Sanjiv Bhardwaj, Ld. Counsel for convicts.
Ld. APP for State submits that since the offence has been proved
against the convicts persons namely Manoj, Rajiv and Naresh @ Sonu under
section 363/120B IPC. Ld. APP for the State further submits that they must be
sentenced according to provisions of law to teach a lesson to such uncivilized
persons. On this ground he has prayed for maximum sentence to the convict
persons.
State Vs. Manoj Kumar and others
SC No.42/2010 1/20
On other hand, Ld. Counsel for convict persons submits that they are
very poor persons and there is no previous criminal antecedents against any of
them. Ld. counsel for convicts persons submits that they are facing trial since
2003. Ld. Counsel for convicts further submits that convicts have the
responsibilities of their families. Ld. counsel for convicts persons further
submits that convicts have been remained in JC for about four days till today.
Ld. counsel for convicts has requested for lenient view and requested to
release the convicts on probation.
Arguments heard. After taking into consideration the fact that the
convicts namely Rajiv, Manoj and Naresh @ Sonu have been remained in JC
for 04 days till today and they have the responsibilities of their families, this
court find that the ends of justice will meet if convicts namely Manoj, Rajiv
and Naresh @ Sonu be sentenced for three years and fine of Rs.10,000/
against each of them, in default of fine each of convicts shall undergo S.I. for a
period of one month.
At this stage, ld. counsel for convicts has moved an application under
section 4 of Probation for releasing the accused persons on probation on the
ground that the convicts have liabilities of their respective families which
consist of their minor children and wives and the convicts are only earning
members in their families and convicts undertake to keep/maintain good
behavior and conduct during the probation period. In view of submission of
Ld. counsel for convicts, application is hereby allowed. Accordingly, convicts
namely Manoj, Rajiv and Naresh @ Sonu be released on probation for a period
State Vs. Manoj Kumar and others
SC No.42/2010 2/20
of three years and fine of Rs.10,000/ each in default of fine they shall undergo
S.I. for one month. Fine paid. Out of amount of fine, Rs.10,000/ as a
compensation be paid to victim through his mother, Rs.10,000/ be paid in the
school running for poor or handicapped children and remaining Rs.10,000/
be deposited to State.
Accordingly, convicts namely Manoj, Rajiv and Naresh @ Sonu are
released on probation for a period of three years. In terms of section 437 A
Cr.P.C. convicts are hereby directed to execute bond to keep the peace & be
to Good Character in sum of Rs.10,000/ each with one surety in the like
amount for the period of three years. Orders accordingly. File be consigned to
record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT
ON THIS 29.08.2011
(Ramesh Kumar - II) ASJ01/N.E.
KKD Courts/Delhi.
State Vs. Manoj Kumar and others
SC No.42/2010 3/20
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAMESH KUMAR - II, LD. ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE - 0I : North East / KARKARDOOMA COURTS:
DELHI.
Case ID Number.
Sessions Case No. 42/2010
Assigned to Sessions. 10.11.2010
Arguments heard on 20.08.2011
Date of order. 26.08.2011
FIR No. 282/2003
State Vs 4. Manoj Kumar s/o Sh. Om Prakash
Vijay singh, r/o D748, Gali No.8,
Ashok Nagar, Delhi.
5. Naresh @ Sonu s/o Sh. Bhagwan,
r/o D504/8, Gali NO.4, Ashok
Nagar, Delhi.
6. Rajiv s/o Sh. Bhagwan, r/o D504/8,
Gali NO.4, Ashok Nagar, Delhi.
Police Station M.S. Park
Under Section 363/120B IPC
JUDGEMENT
1. Vide this judgment I shall dispose of this case in which accused persons namely Manoj Kumar, Naresh @ Sonu and Rajiv have been prosecuted by Station House Officer of Police Station M.S. Park vide FIR No.282/2003 chargsheeted u/s 363/120B IPC in the court of ld. Metropolitan Magistrate and section 207 Cr.P.C. had already been complied with by Ld. M.M. State Vs. Manoj Kumar and others SC No.42/2010 4/20 Since, this court is designated court for trial of cases pertaining to child victims, hence this case was sent by Ld. District Judge/Incharge, North East District, Karkardooma Courts to this court for trial.
2. Facts of the case of prosecution are that on 03.09.2003, a DD No.42B Ex.PW2/B was recorded at police station M.S. Park by complainant Babli regarding missing of his son namely Asish @ Kalu aged 45 years and same DD was marked to HC Amar Singh for taking action into the matter. On receipt of DD, HC Amar Singh had filled up missing persons form and same was flashed throughout India by missing persons squad and he had also sent WT messages to senior police officials of India. On 04.09.2003 complainant again came at police station and told that his son namely Asish aged about 5 years had been kidnapped by some unknown persons. HC Amar Singh had recorded statement of complainant Ex.PW6/A and got registered FIR Ex.PW1/A u/s 363 IPC. In the meantime, victim Asish aged about 5 years was recovered from Gannaur Chowk, Haryana vide recovery memo Ex.PW5/A. During the course of investigation, all the accused persons namely Manoj Kumar, Naresh and Rajiv were arrested for offences u/s 363/120B IPC.
3. On the basis of material available on record this court vide order dated 18.01.2011 framed a charge against accused persons namely Manoj, Naresh and Rajiv for the offences punishable u/s 363/120B IPC to which accused State Vs. Manoj Kumar and others SC No.42/2010 5/20 persons did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its case prosecution has examined 07 witnesses namely PW1 Victim Asish @ Kalu, PW2 ASI Rajender Kumar, PW3 W/ASI Madhvi Bisht, PW4 HC Naresh Kumar, PW5 Sub Inspector Inderjeet Singh, PW6 HC Amar Singh and PW7 Retired SI Kans Raj.
5. PW1 Asish @ Kalu is a material witness being victim. This witness has been examined by this court for ascertaining his knowledge and capacity of understanding of this child witness by putting some questions and after getting reply on being satisfied that this child witness can understand questions and reply the same.
6. This witness in his testimony has deposed that at the time of incident he was student of class 1st and on the day of incident he had gone outside of his house in the gali to play, his parents, brother and uncle were present inside of his house. This witness has further deposed that all three accused persons present in court (correctly identified) were earlier known to him and all these three accused persons had come on a twowheeler scooter and they had taken him to Haryana in a jungle and all these accused persons left him in the jungle where he remained for about 8 days and then one person took him to his house after 1520 minutes on the same day when accused persons had left him in the jungle and his parents had brought him from the house State Vs. Manoj Kumar and others SC No.42/2010 6/20 of that person. In his cross examination by Ld. Counsel for accused persons this witness has deposed that his parents used to reside in a rented house and accused Manoj was also residing in the same building as a tenant where they were residing. This witness has further deposed that he could not raise alarm as accused persons put handkerchief on his mouth. This witness has further deposed that accused Rajiv and Naresh @ Sonu are real brothers and resides together in a house after crossing Railway Line. This witness has further deposed that children of that person were little bit elder than to him and used to play with him during those 8 days.
7. PW2, ASI Rajender Kumar is a formal witness being duty officer. This witness has deposed that on 03.09.2003 at about 08:30 p.m. complainant Babli S/o Gaje Singh, R/o House No. 288, Gali No. 03, DBlock, Ashok Nagar, Shahdara (behind MIG Flats), Delhi came in the police station and he got recorded his statement in connection of disappearing his son Asish @ Kalu, five years old from 02.09.2003. This witness has proved missing report Ex.PW2/A. This witness has also proved copy of DD Ex.PW2/B which was was assigned to HC Amar Singh to take action into the matter. In his cross examination, this witness admits that there is no arrival and departure entries for 07.09.2003 made by HC Amar Singh in respect to the present case and that there is no entry in respect of arrest of accused persons and recovery of case property i.e. Scooter.
State Vs. Manoj Kumar and others SC No.42/2010 7/20
8. PW3, W/ASI Madhvi Bisht. This is the witness of registration of FIR. This witness has registered FIR Ex.PW3/B of the present case for offence u/s 363 IPC on the basis of rukka Ex.PW3/A presented through HC Amar Singh and investigation of this case was assigned to HC Amar Singh.
9. PW4, HC Naresh Kumar. This witness has deposed that on 06.09.2003, he was posted in missing persons squad at Kotwali, Daryaganj, Delhi and on that day, at about 07:00 p.m. he had received telephonic information regarding one boy Kallu, aged about 04 years, was present at chowk, Gannaur, Haryana and it was also told to him that missing person was disclosing name of her mother as Basanti and name of his brother as Aakash. This witness had checked the list of missing persons and found that one Asish @ Kallu, aged about 04 years enrolled in the list and was missing from the area of Police Station M.S. Park. This witness has further deposed that he had informed to duty officer of Police Station M.S. Park that missing boy Kallu could be procured from the chowk, Gannaur, Haryana and Duty officer had told him that aforesaid information has been recorded in DD No. 21A. In his cross examination by ld. Defence counsel, this witness has deposed that he does not know the name of the informant person and he had also not instructed the informant to pass over this information to concerned police station. This witness admits that he had not verified from the informant about the specific place where informant was with missing boy.
State Vs. Manoj Kumar and others SC No.42/2010 8/20
10.PW5 SubInspector Inderjeet Singh. This witness has deposed that on 06.09.2003, complainant Babli, father of victim came at Police Station and he had informed him that his son might be at Gannaur, thereafter, immediately, he along with Investigating Officer / HC Amar Singh and complainant proceeded to Main G.T. Road Gannaur, Sonepat, Haryana to take custody of his kidnapped son Asish @ Kalu. This witness has further deposed that they reached there and they found Asish sitting nearby a fruit seller at aforesaid G.T. Road. Complainant had identified his son Asish. This witness has further deposed that thereafter, Investigating Officer took custody of Asish and prepared seizure memo Ex.PW5/A in his presence. In his cross examination by ld. Defence counsel, this witness admits that prior to departure/arrival for investigation of the case complete details of the formation of team, purpose of visit as well as the work carried out during investigation is mentioned in the DD entry register. This witness further admits that prior to proceeding for an outstation investigation permission is to be sought in writing from the ACP concerned.
11.PW6 HC Amar Singh is a material witness being first I.O. of the present case. This witness has deposed that on 03.09.2003 complainant Babli came at Police Station and he got registered missing report for his son namely Asish @ Kalu, aged about 0405 years to duty officer and DD No.42B Ex.PW2/B was lodged to this effect. This witness has further deposed that State Vs. Manoj Kumar and others SC No.42/2010 9/20 same DD was assigned to him and he took steps in connection of missing person i.e. filled up missing persons form and same was flashed throughout India by missing persons squad and WT messages were also sent to senior police officials of India. This witness has further deposed that he had interrogated complainant and directed him to produce photographs of his missing son. This witness has proved statement of complainant Babli Ex.PW6/A, rukka Ex.PW3/A and copy of FIR Ex.PW3/B. This witness has further deposed that he along with complainant left the Police Station and made search of kidnapped Asish @ Kalu in the area of Ashok Nagar, Meet Nagar etc. but no clue came forward.
12.This witness has further deposed that on 06.09.2003, at about 07:00p.m. copy of DD No.21A Ex.PW6/B was assigned to him and it came into his notice from the same that Ct. Naresh from Missing Person Squad had informed to Police Station M.S. Park that a boy of similar descriptions of Kalu may be traced from Gannaur Chowk, District Sonepat, Haryana. Thereafter, he had informed to senior police officials in connection of facts of aforesaid DD and with the permission of senior police officials he along with HC Inderjeet and complainant reached at Gannaur Chowk, Main G.T. Road, Gannaur, District Sonepat, Haryana and there they found Asish @ Kalu and complainant had identified his son victim. This witness has further deposed that he took custody of Asish @ Kalu vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/A. Thereafter, further investigation of this case was assigned to State Vs. Manoj Kumar and others SC No.42/2010 10/20 SubInspector Kansh Raj by the oral order of SHO/Inspector Jag Ram Singh and he handed over the case file to SubInspector Kansh Raj.
13.This witness has further deposed that name of kidnappers were disclosed by Asish as Manoj, Naresh @ Sonu and Rajiv.
14.This witness has proved the arrest memo of accused Rajiv Ex.PW6/C and his personal search memo Ex.PW6/D. This witness has also proved arrest memo of accused Naresh @ Sonu Ex.PW6/E and his personal search memo Ex.PW6/F. This witness has also proved the disclosure statement of accused Rajiv Ex.PW6/G and disclosure statement of accused Naresh @ Sonu Ex.PW6/H.
15.This witness has also proved arrest memo of accused Manoj Ex.PW6/I, his personal search memo Ex.PW6/J and disclosure statement Ex.PW6/K.
16.This witness has also proved seizure memo Ex.PW6/L by which one two wheeler scooter 7735 was seized from the house of accused Rajiv. This witness has also proved superdarinama Ex.PW6/M. This witness has got medically examined victim Asish from GTB Hospital vide MLC mark X. This witness has been cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel at length and supported the case of prosecution.
State Vs. Manoj Kumar and others SC No.42/2010 11/20
17.PW7 Retired/SI Kans Raj is a material witness being 2nd I.O. of the present case. This witness had collected the present case file from previous I.O. HC Amar Singh. This witness along with HC Amar Singh and complainant reached at House No.A504, Gali No.3, Ashok Nagar, Delhi in search of accused persons and overpowered accused Naresh @ Sonu and Rajiv from their house. This witness has proved the arrest memo of accused Rajiv Ex.PW6/C and his personal search memo Ex.PW6/D. This witness has also proved arrest memo of accused Naresh @ Sonu Ex.PW6/E and his personal search memo Ex.PW6/F. This witness has also proved the disclosure statement of accused Rajiv Ex.PW6/G and disclosure statement of accused Naresh @ Sonu Ex.PW6/H.
18.This witness has also proved arrest memo of accused Manoj Ex.PW6/I, his personal search memo Ex.PW6/K and his disclosure statement Ex.PW6/K.
19.This witness in pursuance of disclosure statement of accused Naresh @ Sonu got recovered two wheeler scooter, used in crime, make Bajaj Chetak No. DL7ST7735 from his house and same was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/L. This witness has got medically examined Asish from GTB Hospital vide MLC mark X.
20.This witness has further deposed that he had prepared charge sheet for State Vs. Manoj Kumar and others SC No.42/2010 12/20 offence u/s 363/120B IPC against all the three accused persons and sent the same to court for trial. In his cross examination by ld. Defence counsel this witness admits that residence of accusedNaresh and Rajiv is situated near the Ashok Nagar Faatak. This witness has further deposed that the victim had not disclosed him during the course of investigation that he was left in jungle from where one person took him to his house and where he lived with his family. This witness further deposed that he does not know if the victim used to collect empty bottles bear/wine etc./supply water outside the liquor shop. This witness has further deposed that he had not collected any DD entry in respect to departure/arrival to/from Gannaur made by HC Amar Singh and other police officials. This witness has further deposed that AccusedRajiv and Naresh were arrested from their residence at 06:00pm and accused Manoj was arrested at 06:30pm from his residence.
21.After prosecution witness. statement of all the accused persons u/s 313 Cr. P.C. were recorded wherein all the accused persons denied all circumstances and evidence were put to them and claimed to be innocent and have been implicated falsely. Accused Naresh and Rajiv had deposed that they have been implicated in this case by the parents of the victim as they were enemical against them as a quarrel took place between accused Manoj and the parents of the victim who lived in the same premises in the capacity of tenants and they had supported accused Manoj in the quarrel. Accused Manoj had deposed that he has been implicated in this case by the State Vs. Manoj Kumar and others SC No.42/2010 13/20 parents of the victim as they were enemical against him.
22.Since accused persons had not preferred to lead any defence evidence. Hence, D.E. was closed. Thereafter, case was fixed for arguments. ARGUMENTS:
23.Ld. APP for state has argued that on 03.09.2003 a DD No.42B Ex.PW2/B was got recorded by complainant Babli at Police Station M.S. Park regarding missing of his son namely Asish @ Kalu. Thereafter, on 04.09.2003 on the statement of complainant Babli Ex.PW6/A, FIR No.282/2003 u/s 363 IPC was registered against all the accused persons namely Manoj, Naresh @ Sonu and Rajiv on allegation of kidnapping. Accordingly, they were arrested for offences u/s 363/120B IPC. Accused Rajiv and Naresh @ Sonu are brothers and accused Manoj is their friend. Accused Manoj, Naresh and complainant are resident of same premises and accused Rajiv resides in front of house of victim.
24.Ld. APP for the State has further argued that PW1 Asish, victim is the material witness and he had stated in his statement that all three accused persons namely Manoj, Rajiv and Naresh were earlier know to him and all these three accused persons had come on a two wheeler scooter and they had taken him to Haryana in a jungle.
State Vs. Manoj Kumar and others SC No.42/2010 14/20
25.PW2 ASI Rajender Kumar is a formal witness being duty officer. This witness has registered the missing report on complaint of Babli, father of victim (since deceased). PW 3 W/ASI has registered FIR Ex.PW3/B. PW4 HC Naresh Kumar is the witness of receiving information of missing boy from Gannaur by some unknown person.
26.PW5 SI Inderjeet Singh is witness of recovery of victim from Gannaur Chowk, Sonepat from fruit seller.
27.PW6 HC Amar Singh and PW7 Inspector Kans Raj are witnesses of arrest of accused Naresh @ Sonu, Rajiv and Manoj and custody of victim from Gannaur, Sonepat, Haryana in presence of complainant.
28.Ld. APP for the State has further argued that there are sufficient material on record to convict the accused persons under the section for which they have been charged.
29.On the other hand, ld. Counsel for accused persons has argued that victim in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. has deposed that he know the accused persons namely Manoj, Rajiv and Naresh @ Sonu who are his neighbours. This witness has further stated that all the three accused persons had kidnapped him. Ld. Counsel for accused persons has further argued that none of accused is named in first statement of PW1.
State Vs. Manoj Kumar and others SC No.42/2010 15/20
30.Ld. counsel for accused persons has argued that PW5 has deposed that parents of victim told him that his son might be at Gannaur. This witness in his cross examination has deposed that I.O. along with complainant had gone to Gannaur.
31.Ld. counsel for accused persons has further argued that PW6 HC Amar Singh states that it is wrong to suggest that accused Naresh and Rajiv were residing at Ashok Nagar whereas PW7 SI Kans Raj contradict this fact. Time of arrest is also disputed.
32.On these grounds, Ld. Counsel for accused persons prayed for acquittal of all the accused persons from the charges.
33.Argument heard. Record perused. On perusal of record it is revealed that on the statement of complainant Babli Ex.PW6/A, FIR No. 282/2003 Ex.PW1/A u/s 363 IPC was registered and all the accused persons namely Manoj, Rajiv and Naresh @ Sonu were charge sheeted u/s 363/120B IPC and were arrested for the same.
34.On further perusal of record it is revealed that victim Asish aged about 5 years was recovered from Gannaur Chowk, Haryana vide recovery memo Ex.PW5/A on the pointing out of complainant.
State Vs. Manoj Kumar and others SC No.42/2010 16/20
35.On further perusal of record, it is revealed that victim Asish was medically examined vide MLC mark 'X' in GTB Hospital on 07.09.2003.
36.On perusal for record, it is revealed that accused Rajiv was arrested by police vide arrest memo Ex.PW6/C, his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo Ex.PW6/D and his disclosure statement Ex.PW6/G was recorded by I.O. in the presence of complainant and victim.
37.On perusal for record, it is revealed that accused Naresh was arrested by police vide Ex.PW6/E, his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo Ex.PW6/F and his disclosure statement Ex.PW6/H was recorded by I.O. in the presence of complainant and victim.
38.On perusal for record, it is revealed that accused Manoj was arrested by police vide Ex.PW6/I, his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo Ex.PW6/J and his disclosure statement Ex.PW6/K was recorded by I.O. in the presence of complainant and victim.
39.On further perusal of record, it is revealed that in pursuance of disclosure statement of accused Naresh @ Sonu, I.O. had recovered two wheeler scooter, used in crime, make Bajaj Chetak No. DL7ST7735 from his house and same was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/L. State Vs. Manoj Kumar and others SC No.42/2010 17/20
40.On perusal of record, it is further revealed that PW1 Asish, victim had identified all the accused persons namely Manoj, Rajiv and Naresh @ Sonu as culprits.
41.Before coming to any conclusion, it will be relevant to discuss section 120B, 363 IPC :
Section 120B.
Punishment of criminal conspiracy.
(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigourous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.
Section 363 IPC: Punishment for kidnapping.
"Whoever kidnaps any person from India or from lawful guardianship, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
42.Since the present case was registered on statement of complainant Babli regarding missing of his minor son victim Asish @ Kalu and victim Asish was recovered from Gannaur, Sonepat, Haryana on telephonic information of some unknown person received by HC Naresh Kumar at Kotwali State Vs. Manoj Kumar and others SC No.42/2010 18/20 Daryaganj, Delhi and two wheeler scooter used by accused persons had also been recovered at the instance of accused Naresh @ Sonu from his house.
43. After careful examination of record of this case, it appears that present case had been registered in respect of missing of minor victim Asish aged about five years and that complainant inspite of extensive search could not find the victim. The victim could be recovered from Gannaur only on receiving telephonic information at Kotwali Daryaganj, New Delhi by HC Naresh Kumar and same was forwarded to police station M.S. Park. However, fact of demand of ransom could not come on record.
44.PW1 Asish (victim child) while deposing in the court he was 13 years old and court found him capable in giving rational answer. In his examination this witness has deposed that while he was studying in class 1st and on the day of incident this witness had gone outside of his house in gali to play, all three accused persons present in the court, whom he correctly identified as they were known to him. According to this witness all these accused persons had come on a two wheeler scooter and they had taken him to Haryana in jungle and all accused person had left him there, where this witness lived in a house of a unknown person for about eight days. In his cross examination this witness had denied to suggestion that incident had taken place at 4:00 a.m. State Vs. Manoj Kumar and others SC No.42/2010 19/20
45.PW SI Inderjeet Singh. This witness along with I.O. had gone to main G.T. Road, Gannuar, Sonepat, Haryana to recover the missing boy with complainant at Gannaur. This witness states that IO had prepared seizure memo of custody of Asish.
46.Further, PW6 HC Amar Singh, (previous I.O.). This witness has registered missing report of victim Asish and filled up missing person form and flashed WT message throughout India. This witness had received information from Ct. Naresh from missing person squad who had informed to police station M.S. Park that boy of description of victim may be traced from Gannaur Chowk. Thereafter, this witness along with SI Inderjeet and complainant reached at Gannuar Chowk where complainant identified his son Asish @ Kalu. In cross examination this witness states that he had made departure entry at police station on 06.9.2003 for going to Gannuar.
47.PW7 SI Kans Raj. This witness along with HC amar Singh and complainant had reached at House No. A504, Gali No.3, Ashok Nagar, in search of accused persons where he overpowered accused Rajiv and Naresh @ Sonu on pointing out of complainant Babli and victim Asish. This witness had also arrested accused Manoj from his house No.286, Gali No.3, Ashok Nagar, Shahdara on pointing out of complainant and victim in presence of HC Amar Singh. In his cross examination this witness states State Vs. Manoj Kumar and others SC No.42/2010 20/20 that it had come into his knowledge that parents of victim were enemical against accused persons on issue of quarrel on water. This witness further states that residence of accused Rajiv and Naresh are near the Ashok Nagar Phatak. This witness further states that victim had not disclosed him that he was left in jungle from where one person took him to his house.
48.In their statement 313 Cr.P.C. all the accused persons claimed to be innocent and states that they have been implicated in this case by the parents of victim as they were enemical against them and a quarrel took place them and parents of victim who lived in same premises in capacity of tenant where they also reside as tenants. The names of coaccused Naresh and Rajiv have dragged in the present case as they had supported accused Manoj in a quarrel. None of accused prefer to lead defence evidence.
49.On analysis the material available on record, this court find that prosecution has been able to establish his case to the effect that all the accused persons kidnapped Asish from Delhi and left him in Gannaur, Sonepat. It is also stands established that victim was recovered from Gannaur, Sonepat. Recovery memo was prepared by the IO to this effect. On the statement of victim accused persons namely Manoj, Rajiv and Naresh @ Sonu were arrested.
State Vs. Manoj Kumar and others SC No.42/2010 21/20
50.Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled as 'Prakash Vs State of Haryana AIR 2004 SC 227: (2004) 1 SCC 339' it has been observed that:
"The object of this section seems as much to protect the minor children from being seduced from improper purposes as to protect the rights and privileges of guardians having the lawful charge or custody of their minor wards"
51.For the purpose of section 363 IPC in respect to the facts of the present case it is sufficient that accused persons namely Manoj, Rajiv and Naresh @ Sonu conspired to kidnap Asish in execution of their criminal conspiracy and left victim at Gannaur, Sonepat, Haryana. Requirement of section 363 IPC is met out, since victim was taken away from the lawful guardianship of his parents without their consent. It does not make any difference if the victim could not disclose the name of accused person at the time of his recovery from Gannaur, Sonepat. However, he has identified all the accused persons by their names in the court. Identity of accused persons by the victim is sufficient for the purpose of section 363 IPC.
52.After taking into consideration testimonies of minor victim and of officials witnesses, this court comes to the conclusion that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused persons namely Manoj, Rajiv and Naresh @ Sonu under section 363 and 120B IPC.
State Vs. Manoj Kumar and others SC No.42/2010 22/20
53.Hence, this court hold the accused persons namely Manoj, Rajiv and Naresh @ Sonu guilty under section 363/120B IPC.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 26.08.2011 (RAMESH KUMARII) ASJ01/ North - East Karkardooma Courts, Delhi State Vs. Manoj Kumar and others SC No.42/2010 23/20 State Vs. Manoj Kumar and others SC No.42/2010 24/20