Delhi District Court
State vs Harpreet Singh on 31 October, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY SHARMA-II : DJ (COMMERCIAL-11)
(CENTRAL): TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
SC No. : 28323/2016
FIR No. : 143/2013
Under Section : 364A/342/323/120B/34 IPC
Police Station : Rajinder Nagar
CNR No. : DLCT01-001749-2013
State Versus 1. Harpeet Singh
S/o Sardar Surinder Singh
R/o H. No. 6/20, 2nd Floor, WEA
Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh
Delhi
2. Sarpal Singh Sodhi
S/o Late Sardar Ranjeet Singh
R/o H. No. 20, Sector-8, UIT
Bhiwadi, Distt. Alwar, Rajasthan
3. Amarjeet Singh @ Jeeta
S/o Sh. Trilochan Singh
R/o H. No. 49, Gurunanak Vihar
Phase-II, Chander Vihar
Nilothi Extension, New Delhi-41
Date of Institution : 08.11.2013
Date of Arguments : 22.07.2023
Date of Judgment : 31.10.2023
JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION:
1. The case of the prosecution is that on or before 06.07.2013, the accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy to commit offence of kidnapping of Master Harneet Singh, Age 11 years, for ransom, to confine and cause hurt to him. Thus, the State prosecuted the accused persons for offence punishable under Section 120B IPC.
FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 1 of 77
2. It is further case of the prosecution that on 06.07.2013 at about 06.00 p.m. to 06.10 p.m., the accused persons, in furtherance of criminal conspiracy, kidnapped Master Harneet Singh from Old Rajinder Nagar, Delhi, within jurisdiction of PS Rajinder Nagar, and demanded ransom of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- and threatened to cause his death in order to compel his parents to pay the ransom. Thus, the State prosecuted the accused persons for offence punishable under Section 364A IPC read with Section 120B IPC.
3. It is further case of the prosecution that on 07.07.2016 at about 09.15 a.m., the accused persons, in furtherance of criminal conspiracy, wrongfully confined Master Harneet Singh in Maruti Swift Car No. DL 8CQ 2759 in Car / Taxi Parking, Rewari Railway Station, Haryana. Thus, the State prosecuted the accused persons for offence punishable under Section 342 IPC read with Section 120B IPC.
4. It is further case of the prosecution that the accused persons, in furtherance of criminal conspiracy, administered stupefying substance to Master Harneet Singh with intent to facilitate the commission of offence of kidnapping for ransom. Thus, the State prosecuted the accused persons for offence punishable under Section 328 IPC read with Section 120B IPC. RECEIPT OF INFORMATION:
5. On 06.07.2013 at 06.55 a.m., PW-26 HC Darshan Lal, Duty Officer, PS Rajinder Nagar received a PCR call, through wireless, that "caller made a call from H. No. 81, Block 10, Old Rajinder Nagar, Delhi from Mobile No. 9871874561 that one person kidnapped a child from there', vide DD No. 30A Ex.PW26/A. FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 2 of 77 TEHRIR:
6. On receipt of DD No. 30A Ex.PW26/A, PW-32 SI Gianender Singh alongwith PW-28 Ct. Krishan Kumar reached at H. No. 10/54, Ground Floor, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi- 110060 where he met PW-10 Smt. Jasvinder Kaur, mother of Master Harneet Singh (Hereinafter 'the complainant'). He recorded her statement Ex.PW10/A which is translated, as under:
"Stated that I am residing alongwith family at the aforesaid address since 2002. I am a home maker. I am imparting tuitions to children in my house. I have two sons. Elder son is Mandeep Singh, Age 14 years and younger son is Harneet Singh, Age 11 years. Today, at about 06.00 p.m., my son Harneet Singh had gone to a shop for recharging mobile No. 9210585212. When he did not return after 10 minutes, my husband had gone to see him. In the street, rear cover of mobile phone was found. I and my husband made call at the said mobile number. The said mobile number was found 'not reachable'. At about 06.41 p.m., I received a call on my mobile No. 9213832008 from mobile No. 9582525332. The caller stated his name as 'Khan'. He stated that my son was with him and an amount of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- be given to him to get him released and otherwise, he would shoot him with a gun. He stated that my son was on his gun-point. My son Harneet Singh is around 11 years old. His height is 4'3". His complexion is fair. His face is round. His physical built is medium. He has long hairs. He is wearing a black turban on head. He is wearing light green t- shirt and lower, and olive colour rexine sandal. My son is wearing two bracelet in his right hand. My son is kidnapped by an unknown person for money....."
7. PW-11 Surinder Singh, the complainant's husband stated that he has a shop of readymade garments at Subhash Road, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi. He is a wholesaler. When his son Harneet Singh had gone for getting mobile phone recharged, he was at his home. He also searched his son. In his presence, his wife received a call from some Khan on her mobile phone who demanded an amount of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- for releasing my son.
FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 3 of 77 RUKKA:
8. On the basis of statement of Smt. Jasvinder Kaur Ex.PW10/A and circumstances, PW-32 SI Gianender Singh made endorsement for registration of case under Section 364A Ex.PW32/A.
9. On 06.07.2013 at about 08.00 p.m., he handed over rukka Ex.PW32/A to PW-28 Ct. Krishan Kumar for being taken to PS Rajinder Nagar for registration of FIR. REGISTRATION OF FIR:
10. On 06.07.2013 at 08.15 p.m., PW-26 HC Darshan Lal, Duty Officer, PS Rajinder Nagar registered FIR No. 143/2013 under Section 364A IPC Ex.PW26/B and assigned further investigation of the case to PW-32 SI Gianender Singh. INVESTIGATION:
11. During investigation, PW-32 SI Gianender Singh made enquiry from PW-5 Gyanender Sharma, owner of mobile shop. He seized a copy of relevant page of register containing details of recharging of mobile phones Ex.PW5/B from him, vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/A. He recorded his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
12. PW-32 SI Gianender Singh placed mobile No. 9582525332 on surveillance. On the basis of location of the said mobile phone, raiding teams were sent to Bhiwadi, Alwar, Rajasthan to rescue the child and apprehend the caller. MOBILE CALL RECEIVED FROM MASTER HARNEET SINGH:
13. On 07.07.2013 at about 10.00 a.m., the complainant received a call on her mobile number from Master Harneet Singh from mobile No. 9416295289 that Tarandeep's father had taken him in his car and left him near Rewari Railway Station.
FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 4 of 77
14. According to charge-sheet, the complainant stated that Tarandeep Singh was classmate of her son and name of his father is 'Harpreet Singh'. The complainant stated that she used to communicate with Ms. Simran, Tarandeep's mother in connection with study of their children. She stated that she had stated to Ms. Simran regarding her property in Chand Nagar, Tilak Nagar, Delhi worth Rs. 1,50,00,000/- and they were intending to sell the said property in order to purchase a shop from its sale consideration. She stated that she had enquired from Ms. Simran regarding a shop. Ms. Simran also corroborated the statement of the complainant. Ms. Simran stated that her husband, namely, Harpreet Singh (the accused herein) was dealing in sale and purchase of properties and she had asked her husband to arrange a shop for the complainant. However, she was not aware of intention of the accused Harpreet Singh. ARREST OF THE ACCUSED SARPAL SINGH SODHI:
15. On 07.07.2013, PW-20 Insp. Pramod Gupta, SHO, PS DBG Road, on the direction of senior officers, reached H. No. 20, Sector 8, UIT, Bhiwadi, District Alwar, Rajasthan. He served a notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. upon the accused Sarpal Singh Sodhi. On 07.07.2013 at about 12.00 p.m., he alongwith the accused Sarpal Singh Sodhi reached PS Rajinder Nagar.
16. PW-32 SI Gianender Singh interrogated the accused Sarpal Singh Sodhi. He disclosed that the accused Harpreet Singh kidnapped Master Harneet Singh and he made ransom call for Rs. 1,50,00,000/-. He arrested the accused Sarpal Singh Sodhi, vide arrest memo Ex.PW28/B. He seized two mobile phones make Nokia containing SIM No. 9636066628 and 9929166628 from him, vide seizure memo Ex.PW28/E. FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 5 of 77
17. In his disclosure statement Ex.PW28/D, the accused Sarpal Singh Sodhi disclosed that he was in contact with the accused Harpreet Singh on his mobile No. 8826344453 through mobile No. 9636066628. He disclosed that he has informed the accused Harpreet Singh on his mobile phone that Delhi Police has traced him.
RECOVERY OF MASTER HARNEET SINGH:
18. On 07.07.2013, Insp. Yudhvinder Singh, SHO, PS Prasad Nagar, Delhi, on the direction of senior officers, reached at Parking, Railway Station, Rewari, Haryana. He recovered Master Harneet Singh in the presence of PW-21 SI Pawan Kumar, SHO / GRP, Rewari Railway Station and PW-19 SI Om Prakash, In-Charge, CIA, Rewari Railway Station, vide memo Ex.PW19/A and seized Maruti Swift Car No. DL 8CQ 2759, vide seizure memo Ex.PW19/B. However, the said car was not removed from parking on account of non-availability of its keys. He recorded statements of PW-19 SI Om Prakash and PW-21 SI Pawan Kumar.
19. On 07.07.2013 at about 04.15 p.m., Insp. Yudhvinder Singh brought Master Harneet Singh to PS Rajinder Nagar. He handed over statements and seizure memo to PW-32 SI Gianender Singh.
ARREST OF THE ACCUSED HARPREET SINGH:
20. PW-32 SI Gianender Singh recorded statement of Master Harneet Singh in question-answer form. In his statement, Master Harneet Singh stated that the accused Harpreet Singh had taken him in a car and another person was driving the car. He stated that the accused Harpreet Singh also assaulted him. Master Harneet Singh was medically examined, vide MLC Ex.PW8/A. FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 6 of 77
21. In the meantime, the accused Harpreet Singh reached PS Rajinder Nagar where Master Harneet Singh identified him. PW-32 SI Gianender Singh interrogated the accused Harpreet Singh. He arrested him, vide arrest memo Ex.PW28/F. He recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW8/H. The accused Harpreet Singh disclosed involvement of the accused Amarjeet Singh @ Jeeta in the offence. He disclosed that he arranged two mobile phones and SIM cards from PW-14 Kanwaljit Singh and provided to the accused Sarpal Singh Sodhi for making ransom calls. He disclosed that the accused Amarjeet Singh @ Jeeta left car alongwith Master Harneet Singh in Parking, Rewari Railway Station when he came to know that the police apprehended the accused Sarpal Singh Sodhi. PW-32 SI Gianender Singh recovered mobile phone containing Airtel No. 8826344453, vide seizure memo Ex.PW32/B, car keys and a car parking receipt No. 3661 dated 07.07.2013 issued by NWR Car / Taxi Stand, Rewari (HR) Ex.PW7/A from the accused Harpreet Singh, vide seizure memo Ex.PW28/I. RECOVERY OF MOBILE PHONES AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ACCUSED SARPAL SINGH SODHI:
22. During investigation, PW-32 SI Gianender Singh recovered two mobile phones model Q-888 colour black and white from house of the accused Sarpal Singh Sodhi at his instance. One of the mobile phones was containing Vodafone SIM No. 9582525332, which was used for making ransom calls. Another mobile phone was without SIM. He kept the said mobile phones in a cloth parcel and sealed it with seal having impression RJNGR-I and seized it, vide memo Ex.PW28/J. He prepared site plan of the place of recovery of mobile phones Ex.PW28/K. FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 7 of 77
23. PW-32 SI Gianender Singh reached Parking, Railway Station, Rewari, Haryana. He inspected the car. He recovered one 2 feet long iron rod, one jute bag, one plastic bottle containing 2 litre of petrol, 9 packets of agarbatti and one 3 feet long thin rope, vide seizure memo Ex.PW28/L. He prepared site plan of the place of recovery of Car No. DL 8CQ 2759 Ex.PW28/M. He deposited the case properties in police malkhana.
24. PW-32 SI Gianender Singh prepared pointing out memo of the place from where Master Harneet Singh was kidnapped, at the instance of the accused Harpreet Singh, vide memo Ex.PW32/C.
25. PW-32 SI Gianender Singh recovered mobile phone make Nokia 6070 having IMEI No. 3518 6801 7461 010 used by PW-14 Kanwaljit Singh for activation of Vodafone No. 9582525332 before handing over two mobile phones and SIM cards to the accused Harpreet Singh, vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/A. APPREHENSION AND ARREST OF THE ACCUSED AMARJEET SINGH @ JEETA:
26. On 23.07.2013 at about 10.45 a.m., PW-29 ASI Nirmal Singh, Crime Branch, on receipt of secret information, apprehended the accused Amarjeet Singh @ Jeeta at Karnal By- pass Road, GTK Road, vide DD No. 11 Ex.PW29/A. He arrested him, vide arrest memo Ex.PW23/A. He conveyed information regarding apprehension of the accused Amarjeet Singh @ Jeeta to PS Rajinder Nagar, vide DD No. 14A. He produced the accused Amarjeet Singh @ Jeeta in muffled face before Jurisdictional Magistrate at Rohini Courts, New Delhi.
FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 8 of 77
27. PW-32 SI Gianender Singh, after seeking permission from Jurisdictional Magistrate, interrogated the accused Amarjeet Singh @ Jeeta. He arrested him, vide arrest memo Ex.PW30/B. Thereafter, the accused Amarjeet Singh @ Jeeta was sent to judicial custody.
28. On 25.07.2013, PW-32 SI Gianender Singh filed an application before Jurisdictional Magistrate for Test Identification Parade (TIP).
29. PW-9 Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Ld. MM, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi conducted TIP proceedings. However, the accused Amarjeet Singh @ Jeeta refused to participate in Test Identification Parade (TIP) despite statutory warning.
30. During investigation, the accused Amarjeet Singh @ Jeeta pointed out the place from where Master Harneet Singh was kidnapped, vide memo Ex.PW28/M. He seized mobile phone make Micromax without SIM card from the accused Amarjeet Singh @ Jeeta, vide seizure memo Ex.PW32/D.
31. PW-32 SI Gianender Singh collected Customer Application Forms (CAF) and Call Detail Records (CDR) of Vodafone No. 9582525332 and 9654217828, Tata No. 9213832008 and Airtel No. 9636066628, 8826344453 and 8800891831 from concerned Tele Communication Companies. CHARGE-SHEET:
32. On conclusion of investigation, PW-32 SI Gianender Singh charge-sheeted the accused persons for committing offences punishable under Sections 364A/342/323/120B/34 IPC. COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS:
33. Vide order dated 31.10.2013, Jurisdictional Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Session.
FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 9 of 77 CHARGE:
34. Vide order dated 21.02.2014, the accused persons were charged for committing offences under Section 120B IPC, 364A IPC read with Section 120B IPC, 342 IPC read with Section 120B IPC and 328 IPC read with Section 120B IPC. The accused persons abjured their guilt and claimed trial. TRIAL:
35. The prosecution examined 32 witnesses, as under:
The witnesses Description of the witnesses PW-1 Israr Babu Nodal Officer, Vodafone Mobile Services PW-2 Master Harneet Singh The kidnap child PW-3 Rajeev Ranjan Nodal Officer, TATA Tele Services Pvt. Ltd.
PW-4 S. Jasvinder Singh Employer of the accused Harpreet Singh PW-5 Gyanender Sharma Owner of mobile shop PW-6 Harpreet Singh Caller PW-7 Monu Sharma Car Parking Attendant, Rewari Railway Station PW-8 Dr. Tapas CMO, LHMC, New Delhi
PW-9 Rakesh Kumar Singh Recorded statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Ld. MM of Master Harneet Singh and conducted TIP proceedings qua the accused Amarjeet Singh PW-10 Smt. Jasvinder Kaur The complainant PW-11 Surinder Singh Father of Master Harneet Singh PW-12 Yatin Kumar Owner of M/s. Sai Communication PW-14 Kawaljeet Singh Provided two mobile phones and two SIM cards to the accused Harpreet Singh PW-15 Smt. Laxmi Landlord of Smt. Rani PW-16 Naveen His Voter I-card and photograph were used for issuance of Tata SIM No. 9213832008 PW-17 Amarjeet Singh Owner of M/s. Lifeline Tele Shop PW-18 S. Mahender Singh Owner of mobile shop at WZ-181, Shop No. 5, Shahpura, Opp. Gurunank Nagar, Tilak Nagar, Delhi PW-19 Insp. Om Prakash Recovery witness qua Master Harneet Singh and Swift Car No. DL 8CQ 2759 PW-20 Insp. Pramod Gupta Brought the accused Sarpal Singh Sodhi to PS Rajinder Nagar FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 10 of 77 PW-21 SI Pawan Kumar Recovery witness qua Master Harneet Singh and Swift Car No. DL 8CQ 2759 PW-22 ASI Rajbeer Singh PS GRP, Rewari, Haryana PW-23 HC Anil Arrest witness qua accused Amarjeet Singh PW-24 HC Saranveer MHC (M), PS Rajinder Nagar PW-25 HC Jag Narain MHC (M), PS Crime Branch, Malviya Nagar PW-26 HC Darshan Lal Duty Officer, PS Rajinder Nagar PW-27 Ct. Raj Singh Recovery witness qua two mobile phones from house of the accused Sarpal Singh Sodhi and articles from diggi of Car No. DL 8CQ 2759 PW-28 Ct. Krishan Kumar Accompanied IO SI Gianender Singh PW-29 SI Nirmal Singh Arrest witness qua accused Amarjeet Singh PW-30 ASI Prakash Veer Accompanied IO SI Gianender Singh PW-31 Chander Shekhar Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd. PW-32 SI Gianender Singh Investigating Officer EXAMINATION UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C.:
36. In their examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused persons denied each and every circumstance appearing in evidence against them. They stated that they were falsely implicated. They stated that the prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses and they have deposed falsely. They pleaded innocence and claimed false implication.
37. The accused Harpreet Singh stated that the complainant's husband had taken loan from him. He stated that his employer given him mobile No. 8826344453. He stated that the said mobile number was a corporate number and other numbers in corporate group were also given to other employees to be in touch with the employer. He stated that he does not know how the employer procured the said numbers. He stated that police manipulated the record during investigation and created false evidence to falsely implicate him.
FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 11 of 77
38. The accused Harpreet Singh stated that he used to talk to the accused Sarpal Singh Sodhi regarding business transactions. He stated that he went to police station to lodge complaint against Surinder Singh, husband of the complainant regarding missing of his car and repayment of loan amount but he was detained in police station in a false case. He stated that he told the police that Surinder Singh called him to Rewari to take payment of loan amount but nobody believed him and he was falsely implicated. He stated that the recovered articles were planted. He stated that his mobile phone was in police custody. He stated that police prepared all documents in the police station and obtained his signatures on blank papers. He pleaded, as under:
"Q. 84. Do you want to say anything else? Ans: Surender Singh approached me for sale of his house and on which pretext, I had given one lakh to him with a promise that in case the deal is not struck, he will return this money back. On 06.07.2013, there was a quarrel between me and Surender Singh when I demanded my money back and Surender Singh assured me that he will procure the payment from Rewari where he knew someone where he can get the payment. He borrowed my car and had gone to Rewari alongwith his son to fetch the payment and he did not turn up for quite a bit of time and I was told by Ms. Jasvinder Kaur (wife of Surender Singh) that he would be near Rewari Railway Station and Surender Singh has also told me that he will receive the payment near Rewari Railway Station. I had gone to receive payment from Surender Singh but I found none and I came back to lodge a complaint before the police at PS Rajinder Nagar against Surender Singh where I was detained and falsely implicated after manipulating the evidence as per the convenience of the complainant."
FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 12 of 77
39. The accused Sarpal Singh Sodhi stated that nothing was recovered from him. He stated that police taken his signatures on blank papers forcibly. He stated that he had not made any call to anyone.
40. The accused Amrjeet Singh @ Jeeta stated that he was falsely implicated as he was driver by profession and the accused Harpreet Singh used to hire him as a driver. He stated that a false case was registered against him by police in connivance with the complainant. He stated that ASI Nirmal Singh asked him to join investigation as he used to drive vehicle of the accused Harpreet Singh. He stated that when he visited ASI Nirmal Singh, he was implicated in this case. He stated that he had not made any disclosure statement. He stated that IO had taken his signatures on blank papers. He stated that he was shown to the witnesses in police station. He pleaded, as under:
"Q. 84. Do you want to say anything else? Ans: I am innocent and I have been falsely implicated in this case just because I am a driver by profession and I used to drive the vehicle of accused Harpreet Singh that is why ASI Nirmal Singh called me to join the investigation in the present case and falsely implicated me."
APPEARANCE:
41. I have heard arguments of Mr. Amit Dabas, Ld. Addl. PP for the State, Mr. Kanhaiya Singhal, Advocate for the accused persons and Mr. Diwakar Choudhary, Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for the accused Sarpal Singh Sodhi and examined the evidence, oral and documentary, and perused written arguments alongwith case law filed by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons.
FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 13 of 77 CONTENTIONS OF THE PROSECUTION:
42. Ld. Addl. PP for the State contended that PW-2 Master Harneet Singh described the incident. He contended that he identified the accused Harpreet Singh as the person who had kidnapped him and the accused Amarjeet Singh @ Jeeta as the person who was driving the Car No. DL 8CQ 2759. He contended that PW-2 Master Harneet Singh stated that the accused Harpreet Singh had left him near Rewari Railway Station. He contended that Car No. DL 8CQ 2759 was recovered from Parking, Rewari Railway Station. He contended that parking slip and two keys alongwith remote sensor of Car No. DL 8CQ 2759 were recovered from the accused Harpreet Singh. He contended that mobile phone alongwith Vodafone SIM No. 9582525332 in the name of Rani, used for making ransom call to the complainant on her mobile No. 9213832008, was recovered from house of the accused Sarpal Singh Sodhi at his instance. He contended that PW-14 Kanwaljit Singh checked the said number on his mobile phone before handing it over to the accused Sarpal Singh Sodhi. He contended that the accused Sarpal Singh Sodhi and Harpreet Singh were in constant contact with each other after the incident through their Airtel No. 9636066628 and 8826344453. He contended that the prosecution proved Customer Application Forms (CAF) and Call Detail Records (CDR) of the said mobile numbers. He contended that the accused Sarpal Singh Sodhi made ransom call at 06.41 p.m. on 06.07.2013 and thereafter, the accused Sarpal Singh Sodhi called the accused Harpreet Singh from his mobile number at 06.43 p.m. and thereafter, the accused Harpreet Singh called him at 06.45 p.m. followed by ransom call at 08.41 p.m. FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 14 of 77
43. Ld. Addl. PP for the State contended that the accused Sarpal Singh Sodhi and Harpreet Singh had conversation at 08.44 p.m. followed by ransom call at 11.19 p.m. and they had conversation at 11.21 p.m. followed by ransom call at 06.52 a.m. on 07.07.2013 and thereafter, they had conversation at 06.53 a.m. on 07.07.2013. He contended that the accused Harpreet Singh administered some stupefying substance to PW-2 Master Harneet Singh so as to make him unconscious. He contended that evidence of PW-2 Master Harneet Singh duly corroborated by Call Detail Records (CDR) pertaining to conversation between the accused Harpreet Singh and Sarpal Singh Sodhi, recovery of mobile phones used for making ransom call and conversation, recovery of Car No. DL 8CQ 2759 alongwith incriminating material and motive for commission of offence proved that the accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy to commit offence of kidnapping for ransom and in furtherance thereof, the accused Harpreet Singh and Amarjeet Singh @ Jeeta kidnapped PW-2 Master Harneet Singh and confined him in Car No. DL 8CQ 2759 and thereafter, the accused Sarpal Singh Sodhi made ransom calls to the complainant and the accused Harpreet Singh and Amarjeet Singh @ Jeeta left PW-2 Master Harneet Singh in Parking, Rewari Railway Station on acquiring knowledge that the police had reached the accused Sarpal Singh Sodhi in connection with the offence of kidnapping for ransom. He contended that there is no material infirmity in the prosecution evidence or defect in investigation of the case. He contended that the prosecution proved the charges under Section 120B IPC, 364A read with Section 120B, 342 read with Section 120B IPC and 328 read with Section 120B IPC.
FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 15 of 77 CONTENTIONS OF THE DEFENCE:
44. Mr. Kanhaiya Singhal, Advocate for the accused persons contended that the complainant implicated the accused persons in a false case in collusion with Investigating Agency. He contended that there are material contradictions, improvements and inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence. He contended that the prosecution has not proved compliance of Section 157 Cr.P.C. He contended that the prosecution has not led any evidence that a copy of FIR was sent to Jurisdictional Magistrate immediately after registration of FIR. He contended that PW-32 SI Gianender Singh neither uploaded the information on ZIP Net nor sensitized the local police or published 'hue & cry' notice. He contended that PW-32 SI Gianender Singh alongwith PW-28 Ct.
Krishan Kumar remained at the place of incident from 07.00 p.m. to 09.00 p.m. whereas PW-11 Surinder Singh, father of the minor child, stated that they reached at police station at 07.00 p.m. on 06.07.2013. He contended that the complainant stated that she received two ransom calls at 08.41 p.m. and 11.18 p.m. on 06.07.2013 in presence of police officials whereas PW-32 SI Gianender Singh denied that the complainant had received any ransom call in his presence. He contended that PW-7 Monu Sharma, Parking Attendant did not identify the accused Harpreet Singh or Amarjeet Singh @ Jeeta as the person who had parked the Car No. DL 8CQ 2759 in Parking, Rewari Railway Station. He contended that PW-7 Monu Sharma, in his cross- examination, stated that he lowered the glass of the driver's side of the said car after switching ignition with key and therefore, it falsifies the case of the prosecution that the keys of the said car were recovered from the accused Harpreet Singh.
FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 16 of 77
45. Mr. Kanhaiya Singhal, Advocate for the accused persons contended that PW-2 Master Harneet Singh and PW-7 Monu Sharma stated that Master Harneet Singh made a call from mobile phone of PW-7 Monu Sharma to his father whereas the complainant stated that Master Harneet Singh called her on her mobile number from mobile No. 9416295289. He contended that on this aspect, PW-22 ASI Rajbeer Singh, GRP, Rewari Railway Station stated that Master Harneet Singh called his mother through his mobile phone. He contended that there is no DD entry or PCR call pertaining to recovery of Master Harneet Singh from Car No. DL 8CQ 2759 from Parking, Rewari Railway Station. He contended that Insp. Yadhuvinder Singh, SHO, PS Prasad Nagar, who brought Master Harneet Singh from Parking, Rewari Railway Station, was not examined. He contended that there is no entry in DD register Ex.DW1/A for the period from 07.05.2013 to 01.08.2013 pertaining to recovery of Master Harneet Singh or Car No. DL 8CQ 2759 from Parking, Rewari Railway Station. He contended that there is no memo to the effect that the said car was left under custody of PW-7 Monu Sharma, Parking Attendant, Rewari Railway Station for two days. He contended that Investigating Officer had not taken the accused Harpreet Singh and Amarjeet Singh @ Jeeta to Parking, Rewari Railway Station and instead, he had taken the accused Sarpal Singh Sodhi there. He contended that the articles recovered from diggi of Car No. DL 8CQ 2759 are not incriminatory. He contended that PW-32 SI Gianender Singh did not join any police official or public person to the search and seizure proceedings. He contended that there is no record pertaining to recovery of the said car and articles therefrom.
FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 17 of 77
46. Mr. Kanhaiya Singhal, Advocate for the accused persons contended that PW-2 Master Harneet Singh is not a reliable witness. He contended that in any event, his evidence is contradictory and not worthy of reliance. He contended that Master Harneet Singh referred the offender as "Khan Uncle'. He contended that Master Harneet Singh was around 11 years old, studying in 6th standard and he could distinguish between a "Khan" and "Sikh". He contended that Master Harneet Singh stated that the accused Harpreet Singh was father of his friend Tarandeep. He contended that it is highly improbable that Master Harneet Singh would start running on a call made by the accused Harpreet Singh. He contended that Master Harneet Singh did not make any statement regarding the accused Amarjeet Singh @ Jeeta. He contended that statement of Master Harneet Singh under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was ante-dated. He contended that Master Harneet Singh did not give any description of the offenders. He contended that the investigation is totally silent regarding the time between 06.00 p.m. on 06.07.2013 to 09.00 a.m. on 07.07.2013. He contended that PW-32 SI Gianender Singh did not make any effort to recover mobile phone containing No. 9210585212 and 8800421997 or their Customer Application Form or Call Detail Record. He contended that the house of Master Harneet Singh is situated in a narrow lane and no car can enter into the said lane. He contended that it is highly improbable that no one witnessed such incident of kidnapping of a grown up child from near his residence in a thickly populated area. He relied on judgments in Dattu Ramrao Sakhare vs. State of Maharashtra, (1997) 5 SCC 341 and Ranjeet Kumar Ram vs. State of Bihar, 2015 (6) SCALE 529.
FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 18 of 77
47. Mr. Kanhaiya Singhal, Advocate for the accused persons contended that MLC Ex.PW8/A does not mention that the accused persons kidnapped Master Harneet Singh. He contended that there is no forensic evidence pertaining to presence of chloroform and other stupefying substance in blood of Master Harneet Singh. He contended that the injury, as mentioned in MLC Ex.PW8/A, could have been sustained by a fall or in any outdoor activity in school. He contended that identification of the accused Amarjeet Singh @ Jeeta is doubtful. He contended that the accused Amarjeet Singh @ Jeeta was not kept in muffled face after his apprehension and during production before Jurisdictional Magistrate at Rohini Courts, Delhi. He contended that it is highly improbable that parents would sit quiet and not proceed to Rewari to ascertain that Master Harneet Singh is well or not. He contended that PW-10 Smt. Jasvinder Kaur and PW-11 Surinder Singh did not make any call to Investigating Officer regarding receipt of call from Master Harneet Singh from Rewari. He contended that it is quite surprising that none of the parents accompanied the police team proceeding to Rewari to recover Master Harneet Singh. He contended that there is no evidence that PW-5 Gyanender Sharma did charge mobile numbers 9210585212 and 8800421997 at 06.00 p.m. on 06.07.2013. He contended that register Ex.PW5/B has no evidentiary value. He contended that Master Harneet Singh, PW- 10 Jasvinder Kaur and PW-11 Surinder Singh are not witnesses to arrest memos of the accused Harpreet Singh and Sarpal Singh Sodhi. He contended that the accused Harpreet Singh was using mobile No. 8826344453 which was provided by his employer PW-4 S. Jasvinder Singh during his employment with him.
FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 19 of 77
48. Mr. Kanhaiya Singhal, Advocate for the accused persons contended that in any case, conversation between the accused Harpreet Singh and Sarpal Singh Sodhi through mobile No. 8826344453 and 9636066628 is not incriminating. He contended that apprehension as well as recovery of mobile phone containing Vodafone SIM No. 9582525332 at the instance of the accused Sarpal Singh Sodhi are not inspiring. He contended that the complainant was using TATA SIM No. 9213832008 which was issued on the basis of forged documents. He contended that Vodafone No. 9582525332 was in the name of Rani. He contended that evidence of PW-14 Kanwaljit Singh was falsified by the evidence of PW-18 S. Mahender Singh. He contended that PW-10 Smt. Jasvinder Kaur did not reveal the contents of subsequent three calls received by her on her mobile phone. He contended that the investigation of the case is highly defective and tainted. He contended that there is no recording of ransom calls. He contended that the prosecution failed to prove charges against the accused persons.
49. Mr. Diwakar Choudhary, Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for the accused Sarpal Singh Sodhi contended that in any case, Section 364A IPC has no application to this case. He contended that at the most, it may be a case of wrongful confinement or kidnapping. He contended that the prosecution has not produced any evidence as to how PW-20 Insp. Pramod Gupta reached at the house of the accused Sarpal Singh Sodhi. He contended that the prosecution has not explained as to why recovery of mobile phones was effected from the accused Sarpal Singh Sodhi after two days. He contended that there is no public witness to search and seizure proceedings qua the said phones and SIM card.
FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 20 of 77 CONCEPT OF PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT:
50. The golden principle of criminal jurisprudence is that the burden of proof is always on the prosecution and the accused is presumed to be innocent unless proven guilty. The Courts dealing with criminal cases should constantly remember that there is a long mental distance between "may be true" and "must be true". This basic and golden rule only helps to maintain the vital distinction between "conjectures" and "conclusions" to be arrived at on the touchstone of a dispassionate judicial scrutiny based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case as well as quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record. The evidence must be 'weighed' and 'not counted'. It is the credibility of the evidence which is determinative.
51. In Collector of Customs, Madras vs. D. Bhoormall, (1974) 2 SCC 54, Hon'ble Apex Court held, as under:
"30.....the prosecution or the Department is not required to prove its case with mathematical precision to a demonstrable degree; for, in all human affairs absolute certainty is a myth, and - as Prof. Brett felicitously puts it - "all exactness is a fake". El Dorado of absolute proof being unattainable, the law accepts for it probability as a working substitute in this work-a-day world. The law does not require the prosecution to prove the impossible. All that it requires is the establishment of such a degree of probability that a prudent man may, on its basis, believe in the existence of the fact in issue. Thus, legal proof is not necessarily perfect proof; often it is nothing more than a prudent man's estimate as to the probabilities of the case.
31. The other cardinal principle having an important bearing on the incidence of burden of proof is that sufficiency and weight of the evidence is to be considered - to use the words of Lord Mansfield in Blatch v. Archer - "according to the proof which it was in the power of one side to prove, and in the power of the other to have contradicted"....."
FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 21 of 77
52. In Sujit Biswas vs. State of Assam, (2013) 12 SCC 406, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held, as under:
"13. Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof, and there is a large difference between something that "may be" proved, and something that "will be proved". In a criminal trial, suspicion no matter how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of proof....."
53. The prosecution is required to prove its case beyond 'reasonable doubt' and not 'all doubts'. The doubt which the law contemplates is not of a confused mind but of prudent man who is assumed to possess the capacity to "separate the chaff from the grain". The degree of proof need not reach certainty but must carry a high degree of probability.
MODE OF ASSESSMENT OF EVIDENCE:
54. In criminal cases the Court cannot proceed to consider the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in a mechanical way. The broad features of the prosecution cases, the probabilities and the normal course of human conduct of a prudent person are some of the factors which are always kept in mind while evaluating the merit of the case. While appreciating the intrinsic worth of evidence, the Court must satisfy itself as to whether the evidence of the witness, if read in its entirety, has a ring of truth.
LAW ON CONTRADICTIONS AND DISCREPANCIES:
55. While appreciating the evidence, the Court has to take into consideration whether the contradictions / omissions are of such magnitude that they may materially affect the trial. Normally, omissions or contradictions which affect the basic structure of the prosecution case may be considered to be sufficient for giving benefit of doubt to the accused.
FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 22 of 77
56. When the contradictions are so serious and create doubt in the mind of the Court about the truthfulness of the statement, then such evidence is not safe to rely upon. Where the omission(s) amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of a witness and the other witness also makes material improvements before the Court in order to make the evidence acceptable, it cannot be safe to rely upon such evidence. If the prosecution evidence is found to be in conflict and contradiction with other evidence or with the statement already recorded, in such a case it cannot be held that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. When the version given by the witness in the Court is different in material particulars from that disclosed in his earlier statements, the case of the prosecution becomes doubtful and not otherwise.
57. In Shyamal Ghosh vs. State of West Bengal, (2012) 7 SCC 646, Hon'ble Supreme Court held, as under:
"46.....Undoubtedly, some minor discrepancies or variations are traceable in the statements of these witnesses. But what the Court has to see is whether these variations are material and affect the case of the prosecution substantially. Every variation may not be enough to adversely affect the case of the prosecution."
58. The Court must form opinion about credibility of the witnesses and find out as to whether their depositions inspire confidence. The Court must sift the chaff from the grain and find out the truth from the testimony of the witnesses and t he Court must reach to a conclusion as to whether the residuary evidence is sufficient to convict the accused. The evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness and once the same stands satisfied, it ought to inspire confidence in the mind of the Court to accept the stated evidence.
FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 23 of 77 PRINCIPLES FOR APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE:
59. Appreciation of evidence is an onerous task. In that quest, the Court can make use of principles for appreciation of evidence enunciated in judicial precedents.
60. In Munna Lal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 80, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India delineated principles for appreciation of evidence, as under:
"28. Before embarking on the exercise of deciding the fate of these appellants, it would be apt to take note of certain principles relevant for a decision on these two appeals. Needless to observe, such principles have evolved over the years and crystallized into 'settled principles of law'. These are:
(a). Section 134 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, enshrines the well-recognized maxim that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. In other words, it is the quality of evidence that matters and not the quantity. As a sequitur, even in a case of murder, it is not necessary to insist upon a plurality of witnesses and the oral evidence of a single witness, if found to be reliable and trustworthy, could lead to a conviction.
(b). Generally speaking, oral testimony may be classified into three categories, viz.:
(i) Wholly reliable;
(ii) Wholly unreliable;
(iii) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.
The first two category of cases may not pose serious difficulty for the court in arriving at its conclusion(s). However, in the third category of cases, the court has to be circumspect and look for corroboration of any material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial, as a requirement of the rule of prudence.
(c). A defective investigation is not always fatal to the prosecution where ocular testimony is found credible and cogent. While in such a case the court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence, a faulty investigation cannot in all cases be a determinative factor to throw out a credible prosecution version.
FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 24 of 77
(d). Non-examination of the Investigating Officer must result in prejudice to the accused; if no prejudice is caused, mere non-examination would not render the prosecution case fatal.
(e). Discrepancies do creep in, when a witness deposes in a natural manner after lapse of some time, and if such discrepancies are comparatively of a minor nature and do not go to the root of the prosecution story, then the same may not be given undue importance."
EFFECT OF DEFECTIVE INVESTIGATION:
61. Defective investigation, per se, cannot result into acquittal of the accused. However, if the defects in the investigation are of such nature that they affect the core of the prosecution case and the case of the prosecution is mired in obscurity, then it would be fatal to the prosecution case.
62. In Arvind Kumar @ Nemichand and Others vs. State of Rajasthan, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1099, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held, as under:
"41. There is a subtle difference between a defective investigation, and one brought forth by a calculated and deliberate action or inaction. A defective investigation per se would not enure to the benefit of the accused, unless it goes into the root of the very case of the prosecution being fundamental in nature. While dealing with a defective investigation, a court of law is expected to sift the evidence available and find out the truth on the principle that every case involves a journey towards truth. There shall not be any pedantic approach either by the prosecution or by the court as a case involves an element of law rather than morality."
OFFENCE OF CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY:
63. Section 120A IPC is, as under:
"120A. Definition of criminal conspiracy When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done,-
(1) an illegal act, or (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:
FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 25 of 77 PROVIDED that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.
Explanation : It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object."
OFFENCE OF KIDNAPPING FOR RANSOM:
64. Section 364A IPC is, as under:
"364A. Kidnapping for ransom, etc. - Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction, and threatens to cause death or hurt to such person, or by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt, or causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or [any foreign State or international inter-governmental organisation or any other person] to do so or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom, shall be punishable with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine."
OFFENCE OF WRONGFUL CONFINEMENT:
65. Section 342 IPC is, as under:
"342. Punishment for wrongful confinement. - Whoever wrongfully confines any person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."
OFFENCE OF ADMINISTERING INTOXICATING SUBSTANCE WITH INTENT TO COMMIT AN OFFENCE:
66. Section 328 IPC is, as under:
"328. Causing hurt by means of poison, etc., with intent to commit an offence. - Whoever administers to or causes to be taken by any person any poison or any stupefying, intoxicating or unwholesome drug, or other thing with intent to cause hurt to such person, or with intent to commit or to facilitate the commission of an offence or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 26 of 77 THE EVIDENCE:
67. PW-2 Master Harneet Singh deposed, as under:
".....On 06.07.2013, I had gone to get the mobile phone of my father recharged. While I was coming back, the accused present today in the court, the witness has correctly pointed out towards the accused Harpreet and said that he is father of Tarandeep, my friend, met me. He called me but I did not stop and started running. Accused caught me and put one hanky on my mouth (witness has shown by showing his hands). Thereafter, I became unconscious. When I regained my consciousness, I found myself in the car. Thereafter, the accused Harpreet, father of my friend Tarandeep, had thrown my phone at a place where the idol of Hanuman. Accused Harpreet assaulted on my back near shoulder. Accused Harpreet made me to take medicine and thereafter, again I became unconscious. In the car, there were two persons, one Harpreet and other person is present in the court whose name is Amarjeet. The witness has pointed out towards accused Amarjeet who is present in the court in red colour having black strips. When I found consciousness, I found near Rewari Railway Station and one big clock was there and it was 9.30 a.m. Accused Amarjeet was dropped on the way and accused Harpreet started to drive the car. Accused Harpreet had left me near Rewari Station by saying that he is going to call my father. At that time, he had rolled on all the wind screen of the car. Thereafter, he did not return. I started to cry. On seeing me crying, one parking attendant, witness has described a parking wala ladka aaya and pulled down the screen of the window to little extent by his hands and I was crying at that time. I was in a white colour swift car. I told that parking attendant that I have to talk to my father. He inquired from me that the person i.e. the accused who has left you here was not your father. I replied that he is not my father. I requested the parking attendant to provide his phone so that I can talk to my father and thereafter, from his phone, I had called my father on this mobile phone which I was knowing. Thereafter, police arrived and I was made to sit in a room at Rewari Station. I had asked my father that papa save me and I am at Rewari Station. My statement was also recorded before Ld. Magistrate inside the Chamber.
FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 27 of 77 I can identify the Swift Car. Swift car has not been produced by the Superdar i.e. wife of accused Harpreet and stating that he is not disputing the identity of the white car.
I had identified the accused Amarjeet in the PS also and had identified him as a person who was in the car. Both the accused i.e. accused Harpreet and Amarjeet had told me that they are taking me away from my safety on asking of my father. I was compelled to keep my head down in the car. Accused persons had told me that your father pays you only Twenty Rupees and they will pay me Rs. 100/- per day. Whenever I tried to raise my head, accused used to beat me. I had stated all the facts to the Ld. Magistrate and also to the police officials which had happened with me.
XXXX by Sh. Sanjay Suri, Ld. Counsel for accused Harpreet Singh.
Myself and my friend Tarandeep used to go in our separate private school van.....I had not stated to the Judge Sahab who had recorded my statement inside the chamber about the name of Tarandeep's father Harpreet, who had stopped me and placed the hanky on my mouth. Ld. Addl. PP submits that the same has been mentioned in the statement u/S 161 Cr.P.C. I had not stated in the statement given to the Judge Sahab, the name of father of Tarandeep Singh who had thrown out my mobile in front of the Idol of Hanuman and scolded me. It is correct that I had not disclosed the name as Harpreet who had given me medicine and thereafter, I had become unconscious. It is also correct that I had not disclosed the name of Harpreet to the extent after dropping Amarjeet, he had started to drive the car. It is also correct that I had not stated in my statement u/S 164 Cr.P.C. that name of Harpreet he had left me near Rewari Station so that he is going to call my father. It is also correct that I had not stated in my statement u/S 164 that Harpreet and Amarjeet had told me that they had taken me away for my safety on asking of my father. .....On coming back to Delhi, I was taken to PS first. In the PS, my parents, uncle and aunt were also present. The police enquired from my parents firstly and thereafter, from me. We stayed in the PS for ten minutes.....My parents had accompanied to the hospital also. Doctor had enquired from my parents about the incident and they had narrated.....
FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 28 of 77 I had come to make my statement u/S 164 Cr.P.C. alongwith my parents. I had not met police official on that day before making my statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. I used to return to my home in Van. My parents do not use to pick me. Police uncle had questioned me and I had answered. Such questions were asked to me next day by the police uncle of my statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It is wrong to suggest that I was tutored by my parents on the day of making my statement before Ld. MM. Court observation: Witness has nodded his head in answering the suggestion. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely at the behest of my parents. XXXX by Sh. K. Singhal, Ld. Counsel for accused Amarjeet.
I play badminton as well as cricket. One cricket team consists of 11 players of one side. I do not represent my school in cricket. There is cricket team in my school. In my school cricket team, my friends namely, Tushar, Romy, Sandesh are there. Now, I am in class 7. I was graded B+ in my 6" class examination. It is correct that I had not named Amarjeet by name in my statement u/S 164 Cr.P.C. I had stated, in my statement, before the Judge Sahab that the driver was there in the car. Confronted with the statement u/S 164 Cr.P.C. where it is not so recorded. I had not stated to the Judge Sahab while recording my statement under Section 164 that Amarjeet driver was got down before Rewari. I had stated to the Judge Sahab that in the vehicle there were two persons. Confronted with the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. where it is not so recorded. .....The recharge shop is at some distance from my home. The above said distance can be covered in one minute. I was returning back to my house after recharge. I had come across the half way from the shop to my house. There was no other person when I was coming back to my house. I had not raised alarm when accused caught me.
Ques. Who had apprised you while recording the statement u/S 164 Cr.P.C. that it was the chloroform which was given me to smell?
Ans. I had read these words which was written on a small container in the hands of accused and nobody had told me.
I was made to smell sedative twice and on the second occasion, I could read these words when the accused had taken the container in the car.
FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 29 of 77 .....I have seen the accused Amarjeet first time in the car. Thereafter, I had seen the accused Amarjeet Singh in the PS when he met me in the PS. I do not remember the date and day. I have come to know the name of accused Amarjeet when I had come in the court and in the book, three names were written. I do not know whether the book I had seen in this court or any other court. I do not know the name of Amarjeet (accused) the driver sitting in the car before I had come to this Court. I have not been told by anyone that it was accused Amarjeet.
I have not been told by my mother before coming to the court what I have to depose. I have not been told by anyone what I have to depose. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely. It is wrong to suggest that I have deposed according to my mother."
(emphasis supplied)
68. PW-2 Master Harneet Singh, in his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW9/A, deposed, as under:
"I went to the shop of Pawan to get phone of my father recharged. My father has two phones. Both the phones had to be recharged for Rs. 50/- each. Thereafter, I was returning. Khan uncle had asked me to come to him. I ran towards my house. Khan uncle chased me and made me to inhale chloroform and made me to sit in a car. I opened my eyes in Jhandewalan. I was in the car. I closed my eyes on some excuse and slept. When I woken up, I was in Haryana. I asked uncle as to where I was. He said that my father had asked him to take me from here for my safety. He always kept my head down so that no one can recognize me. Whenever I used to wake up, I was beaten. He dissolved a golden colour tablet in water and made me to drink it. I woke up at 06.30 a.m. He asked me if I had to go to my father. I replied in affirmative. He said that I will be in my house between 12.00 noon or 01.00 p.m. He had taken me to Rewari Railway Station. He left me in locked car. The parking attendant was going from there. I knocked the glasses and he rolled off the glasses with his hands. I asked parking wale uncle that I wanted to talk to my father. He had conversation with my father and asked him as to why he had left his son alone in parking. I stated that I was kidnapped. My father asked parking wale uncle on his phone to leave me with Railway Police. Railway Police had taken me to Rewari Police Station.
FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 30 of 77 Rewari Police made me to gargle. Inspector uncle given me cookies. Media persons from Haryana came and collected information regarding me. Inspector uncle said that he would leave me in my house in half an hour. He brought me to Police Building at ITO in Innova. There was a thief. I had seen him. My parents met me there. I have heard it. It is correct."
69. PW-5 Gyanender Sharma was running a mobile shop at 10/09, Ground Floor, Old Rajinder Nagar, Delhi. He deposed, as under:
".....On 06.07.2013 at about 6.00 p.m., one boy namely Harneet who resides in my neighbourhood at 10/54, Ground Floor, Old Rajinder Ngar, Delhi and used to visit my shop off and on, had come to my shop for getting recharged two mobile numbers with recharge value for Rs. 50 each. I got mobile No. 9210585212 and 880042197 (witness has stated these two numbers on seeing the document). Thereafter, Harneet left my shop. He remained in my shop in this process for about five minutes. Thereafter, he had left. I noted down the numbers which I had recharged in a register maintained in my shop. I had handed over the photocopy of that register to the IO during course of investigation which was seized by the IO through seizure memo Ex.PW5/A bearing my signature at point A. I have also brought the original register of my shop (OSR). Copy placed on file is Ex.PW5/B. The relevant portion wherein I had mentioned the mobile number which were recharged with recharge value Rs. 50 is encircled at point A. XXXX by Sh. Sanjay Suri, Ld. Counsel for accused Harpreet.
It is correct that I do not write the name of the person who came to my shop for getting the mobile recharged. Only I used to mention the numbers of the mobile phone.....It is correct that I have not mentioned the recharge value after the number in some of the numbers mentioned in my register. Vol. Main purpose of noting down the number is that recharge charge value is not added in wrong number. It is correct that I have not mentioned the various nodal agencies from whom the number is being recharged as for e.g.: vodafone, airtel and idea. Vol. I have mentioned in some of the numbers.
FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 31 of 77 I do not have any authority from the company to recharge the coupons. I am not the authorized franchise or the distributor to get the coupons recharged. Vol. I have got a tie up with the distributor. I do not pay any service tax as well as I do not file any income tax return to authenticate to show that I do the business of recharge of mobile numbers. It is correct that In Ex.PW5/B one line is completely missing and in certain lines there is cuttings / numbers are written.....It is correct that the pages preceding the Ex.PW5/B do not have any dates. It is also correct that there are no dates on the pages after Ex.PW5/B....."
(emphasis supplied)
70. PW-6 Harpreet Singh is the caller. He made call at
100. He deposed, as under:
"On 06.07.2013, in the evening time, son of my neighbourer Sardar Surinder Singh and his wife Smt. Jaswinder Kaur was found missing and they were searching for their younger son Harneet Singh. I had informed the police that the son of the Sardar Surinder Singh and his wife Smt. Jaswinder Kaur was not found.
At this stage, Ld. Addl. PP want to put leading question from the witness.
Allowed.
At about 6.45 p.m., after hearing the call on her mobile, all of a sudden Smt. Jaswinder kaur told me that her son was kidnapped and I was also present there and thereafter, I informed police accordingly on number 100 and police arrived there.
XXXX by Sh. Prasanna, Ld. Counsel for the accused Amarjeet @ Jeeta.
.....The house of Smt. Jaswinder Kaur is just opposite of my house and may be less than 10 feet. It is a narrow lane and car does not come in the gali. Vol. Cars are parked outside the gali. In the lane in which our houses are situated having 10-12 houses in one row. There are shops towards the house of complainant where Harneet had gone to recharge the value of the mobile phone. I had come to know about missing of the boy as all the persons gathered there were searching for Harneet Singh in all three gali. I had made call on my own after knowing about the incident. Police arrived on the spot immediately....."
(emphasis supplied) FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 32 of 77
71. PW-7 Monu Sharma is the parking attendant, Rewari Railway Station. He deposed, as under:
".....On 7.7.2013, I was present on my duty at Car Parking, Rewari Railway Station. At about 9.00 a.m., one Swift VDi of white colour came there and was parked there on the same day. I do not remember the number of the car nor I can tell as to who was driving the car as there was rush. The driver of that car paid me Rs. 20/- as parking charge and I issued him a parking slip in lieu of the payment in my hand- writing, writing the time of arrival of the vehicle, the four digits of the vehicle and the day. I identify the parking slip issued by me on that day is now Ex.PW7/A. I have mentioned the vehicle number at point A, time of arrival of the vehicle in the park at point B and date at point C. After parking the vehicle, the vehicle wala went away. While I was taking usual round of the parking as I do usually, I saw one boy was inside the car on the rear seat. The rear window was rolled down a little bit and that boy was weeping. I opened the gate and took out the boy. That boy was a small sikh boy. I enquired from that boy as to why he is weeping. He told me that he wants to talk to his father. I thought that his parents might have gone somewhere leaving him behind, so I offered my phone and he talked to his father. I came to know that Baccha has been kidnapped (Chori hua). Thereafter, I communicated this thing to the son of my contractor Billu on his mobile number whose two digits and last two digits I remember i.e. 94 is first digits and the last two digits are 50. Thereafter, the police came there. After sometimes, Delhi police officials also came there and took away the boy and vehicle was seized and was taken away by the police on 9.7.2013. Car remained under my supervision for two days. Delhi Police officials had brought the key of the car. They had checked the vehicle and on checking from the rear side, one gunny bag, one rod and other things were recovered and police officials took away the same. I did not sign any document.....
.....I do not remember whether the person who had brought the car in the parking area in Rewari was a sikh person or not. (Confronted with his statement where sikh person is mentioned).
FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 33 of 77 XXXX by Sh. Sanjay Suri, Ld. Counsel for the accused Harpreet.
The glass of the driver side window was already lowered half. It is correct that I had lowered the glass of the vehicle driver side after switching the ignition with the key. The child was inside the vehicle in question and he was sitting at the rear seat of the driver seat. I had taken out the child and he was weeping and he was saying that he had to go to his father. The child had stated that my father had left him here and he had to talk to with him and he had to go to him. I cannot identify the person to whom I had given the slip of the parking as it was crowded..... It is correct that the rod, jack or bag are generally found in the dickey of the many cars."
(emphasis supplied)
72. PW-8 Dr. Tapas, CMO, LHMC examined Master Harneet Singh, vide MLC Ex.PW8/A.
73. According to MLC Ex.PW8/A, Master Harneet Singh was brought by his mother Smt. Jasvinder Kaur at 06.20 p.m. on 07.07.2013 to Casualty, LHMC with 'Alleged H/O kidnapping by unknown person at 06.00 p.m. yesterday. Child was recovered at 04.00 p.m. from Rewari, child was assaulted as well. No history of vomiting, unconsciousness, pain, bleeding from any site'.
74. In his cross-examination, PW-8 Dr. Tapas stated, as under:
"XXXXX by Sh. Sanjay Suri, Ld. Counsel for the accused Harpreet Singh.
I cannot say if the injuries sustained by the injured is possible by fall or not. Again said, possibility of sustaining injury by fall cannot be ruled out. I have not taken blood sample of the injured. Mother of the injured had accompanied the child / injured. I did not detect any symptoms of chloroform on the person of injured."
FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 34 of 77
75. PW-10 Smt. Jasvinder Kaur is mother of Master Harneet Singh. She is the complainant. She deposed, as under:
".....On 06.07.2013 at about 6.00 p.m., my younger son namely Harneet Singh had gone to re-charge the mobile phone bearing No. 9210585212 at nearby shop. When he did not return for about ten minutes, then my husband namely Surender Singh went to see him. He found the backside cover of the mobile in the gali. Thereafter, we made call at the above stated number but mobile was responding as not reachable. We searched our son Harneet but he was not found. At about 6.41 p.m., I received a call on my mobile No. 9213832008 from another mobile No. 9582525332 and caller introduced himself as Khan and said that your son is with in our custody and for his release, you pay us Rs. 1.5 crore otherwise he will be killed and your son is on our gunpoint (tumhara larka mere paas hai, use chhurane ke liye der crore rupaye mujhe de do, tumhara beta mere gunpoint par hai, aur hum usse urra denge, agar paise nahi diye to). I had given the description of my son as medium built up round face, and of height 4 feet 3 inches. He was wearing, at that time, light green coloured T-shirt and lower, Raxine Sandal and two steel karah he was wearing. Police came there and recorded my statement, which I identify bearing my signature also.
The same is now Ex.PW10/A bearing my signature at point A. On 07.07.2013 at about 10.00 a.m., I received a call on my number 9213832008 from another mobile number 9416295289 and from that mobile my son Harneet was speaking and he told me that Mamma, father of Tarandeep had brought me in a vehicle and he had left me near Rewari Railway Station and when you will come to take me. At the time of incident, my son was a student of class VI in Guru Harkrishan Public School, Karol Bagh, Delhi. Tarandeep is his classmate and he had told over telephone regarding his father namely Harpreet Singh. The name of mother of Tarandeep is Simran. I had been in touch over telephone with Simran regarding homework of our kids. On 26.06.2013, Simran had come to my house along with Tarandeep at about 12.00 noon. During talking, Simran apprised me that her father is the head of Chand Nagar Gurudwara. During further conversation, I told her that we had resided in that area for about 4-5 years at house No. 400, Chand Nagar, Vishnu Garden, Delhi. She enquired from me as to whether the said house is our own house or not.
FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 35 of 77 Then, I replied that we are the owners of that house. She further conversed me qua the homework. I have met accused Harpreet Singh during parent-teacher meeting of my son in the school. Accused Harpreet Singh is present today in the court. The witness has correctly pointed out towards accused Harpreet Singh.
At this stage, Ld. Addl. PP requests to put a leading question to the witness in regard to the date of coming of Simran to her house.
Heard. Allowed.
It was 25.06.2013 when Simran along with her son came to our house and not 26.06.2013, which I had stated inadvertently, earlier.
On 07.07.2013 at about 3.00/3.13 p.m., while I was present in the police station of Rajender Nagar, at that time, police team reached there with my son Harneet. Police inquired from my son and I had also spoken to my son. I found my son fit at that time. Again said, he was appearing a little bit frightened but over all he was quite good. In the meantime, accused Harpreet Singh came there and my son identified him as the person who had picked him up from near our house in his car and dropped him at near Rewari Railway Station. I also identified accused Harpreet as father of Tarandeep and husband of Simran Kaur. My son was got medically examined from Lady Harding Hospital. After taking permission from the police official I took my son with me at home.
On 26.07.2013, I had gone to PS Rajender Nagar to know about the progress of our case. My son Harneet (victim) was also present with me. I saw one person who was sitting in the police station near IO. My son Harneet identified that person as a person who was driving the vehicle when he was put by the accused Harpreet in the car. The witness has pointed out towards accused Amarjeet Singh @ Jeeta is the person to whom my son identified and stated the things. My son has also stated that accused Amarjeet had driven the vehicle all the way and in the morning left the driving and went away. I came to know his name as Amarjeet S/o Trilochan Singh who is present today in the court (correctly identified by the witness).
FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 36 of 77 On 30.08.2013, I had also gone to the PS Rajender Nagar to know about the progress of the case. I had come to know there that result of the MLC of my son had come and proceeding is going on regarding that. I had stated to the IO that I had disclosed and stated to Simran W/o Harpreet Singh that value of my house situated at Chand Nagar is around 1.5 crore. I had also told that we want to purchase a shop after selling that house. I had asked Simran also that if any good shop in her view is available she should tell us as her husband Harpreet is a property dealer. Once again, I had inquired from Simran about the shop. I had stated all these conversation which has taken place between me and Simran to the IO on 30.08.2013.
On 22.09.2013 the mobile ph. No. 9213832008 which was being used by me is not issued on my ID but is in the name of one person namely Naveen S/o Raj Singh R/o 113, Village Salahpur, Majra, Delhi. I was also informed that this number which I was using was issued in the name of Naveen in March, 2006 but I had taken this number in 2008 after duly filling the application form accompanied with my photo and ID from a shop situated at Shankar Road. I have been using the above number since 2008. That shop from where I had taken the above number after completing the formalities is closed. I had received the ransom call in this case on this number.
I am using mobile No. 9213832008 since 2008. I had given this mobile number to many places including gas agency, schools of my children, bank accounts, friend and my relatives. I received the ransom calls on this mobile number. Both the accused persons are present in the court (correctly identified). XXXX by Sh. K. Singhal, Ld. Counsel for accused Amarjeet Singh.
My son Harneet Singh did not use to go to get the mobile phone recharged. (Vol. On that day he was insisting for going to recharge the mobile). Only me and my husband were there at home and knowing the fact that my son is going to recharge the mobile phone. The recharge shop is located about 100 mts. away from my house. There are other shops located nearby the shop of recharge. We had given two mobile phone numbers to my son. One mobile was to be recharged for Rs. 50/- and another for Rs. 10/-.
FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 37 of 77 On 06.07.2013, three mobile numbers were in use in my family. One of the mobile numbers is mine which is 9213832008 and remaining two numbers, i.e. 9210585212 and 8800421997 were used by my husband. Last three digits of mobile i.e. 212 has been usually handed over by my husband to the children when they were going outside. It is wrong to suggest that No. 9213832008 is not of mine number. The above said number has been used in the Samsung mobile. I cannot tell at present its model number however, I can bring the same from my home. Today, I have brought the mobile phone having No. 9650422064. It is correct that the above said number which I have brought today is not remembered me correctly. (Vol. because the same has been taken by me recently). The mobile No.9213832008 has still been used by me. I have not handed over the phone having 9213832008 to the police in this case. (Vol. However, when we had gone to make complaint about kidnapping of my son, all our phones including the phones of our neighbour were taken and kept on surveillance by the police. At about 5.00 a.m. on 07.07.2013, my phone was given back to me by the police. However, I did not know about the other phones. I have received four ransom calls. First ransom call, I had received at my home. Other two calls have been received by me in the PS in the presence of police officials and last one had been received beneath the house of Harpreet and I was sitting in the van with the police at about 7.00 a.m. on 07.07.2013. I do not know whether the said calls were recorded by the police. My phone was not having any voice recording / call recording system.....I had given my complaint to the police immediately after receiving the first ransom call. I do not know as to when my complaint was converted into FIR. It is correct that I had not received any ransom call on my mobile phone No. 9213832008 after at or around 7.00 a.m. on 07.07.2013. It is correct that I and my family did not know the accused Amarjeet and his family. My son has been brought in PS from Rewari at about 3.00 or 3.30 p.m. on 07.07.2013. (Vol. However, I was informed about the fact of finding of my son at about 9.00 a.m.) My statement was recorded by the police in this case 5-6 times. My statement firstly was recorded on 06.07.2013, 07.07.2013 and 26.07.2013, 30.08.2013 and 22.09.2013. I often visited the police station to know the progress of my case because absconded accused Amarjeet was not arrested / apprehended.
FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 38 of 77 .....My son had not given the description of Amarjeet. (Vol. He only said that one sardar was driver). On 26.07.2013, in PS, myself, my son, accused Amarjeet and IO were present. I do not know when Amarjeet was arrested by the police..... XXXX by Sh. Sanjay Suri, Ld. Counsel for accused Harpreet.
.....On 26.07.2013, I had gone to the PS at about 11.30 a.m. I had accompanied my son to the hospital after he was produced in the police station on 07.07.2013. I had told about the incident to the doctor as well. It is correct that my son had also narrated the entire incident as to what had happened and who had done before visiting the hospital and before I narrated to the doctor. It took about 3-4 hours in the hospital. During that period in the hospital, I had seen all the accused. Again said, I had seen Harpreet and Sarpal Singh. Till that time I had come to know about the names of Harpreet and Sarpal Singh Sodhi.
It is correct that I had received a phone call on my mobile no. 9213832008 and thereafter, I had gone to the Police station. Thereafter, my mobile phone bearing No. 9213832008 was taken by the police. I do not know whether the police recorded all the calls coming thereafter on the mobile No. 9213832008 which was in the custody of the police after I lodged the complaint. (Vol. as and when call was received on the mobile phone it was given to me by the police). My above said mobile instrument was not having facility of recording. Police officials had not attached any instrument with my mobile for recording when it was given to me. Now the above said mobile phone is with me. I have brought the said mobile in the court. (Vol. I have brought the instrument which was being used at that time and the instrument which is being used now).
At this stage, one Samsung Mobile phone is produced by the witness which was being used by her at the time of incident. The mobile phone is opened and details are of the mobile phone are found as follows:
The IMEI No. of mobile phone which was used at that time is A0000023D93DAD AUG 2010 and the model is Samsung CDMA Phone Model SCH-F219, FCCID-A3L9CHF219.
FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 39 of 77 On that day, I was not carrying any other phone. Police did not seize my above said mobile phone. I do not know whether police had recorded the details of my mobile phone when it was in their custody. It is incorrect to suggest that accused never made any ransom call and for this reason the phone was not taken into the possession by the police. We remained in the police station after lodging of the complaint and reaching the police station at 7.30 p.m. on 06.07.2013. I along with police left the police station at about 6.40 a.m. on 07.07.2013 for the house of accused Harpreet. My son had come to the police station in the evening at 3-3.30 p.m. on 07.07.2013. I am not aware if any statements of some neighbors were recorded when we reached the house of Harpreet on 07.07.2013 as I was sitting in the police van. My husband was not present with me. (Vol. he was in the PS at that time). I do not remember whether the police had taken my signature on any document during my stay at the PS. I had received a call from my son on 07.07.2013 at about 9-9.30 a.m. Only thereafter, I came to know that he was at Rewari. I along with my husband did not rush to Rewari to retrieve my son..... XXXX by Sh. Gurmeet Singh, Ld. Counsel for accused Sarpal Singh Sodhi.
I have been residing on the above said address since 2002. Prior to that, I was residing at H. No. 400, Chand Nagar, Vishnu Garden. The present house was purchased by us. My husband is doing the business of garments in wholesale in Gandhi Nagar for last 25 years. The present house was purchased in the name of my husband. My husband is income tax assessee. I have been married 18 years ago. I am well aware and acquainted with business affairs of my husband. It is incorrect to suggest that my husband used to deal in property dealing of and on. We have purchased the present house in the year of 2002 for around Rs. 11 lacs. The present cost of the house is around Rs. 60 lacs. My husband did not know the accused persons so there is no question about his involvement in any property dealing at any point of time with the accused persons. I never received any phone call on the said no. from anyone on 07.07.2013 from the morning till my son was recovered. It is incorrect to suggest that accused Sarpal Singh has never made any ransom call to me. I was not known to accused Sarpal Singh prior to making complaint in this case....."
(emphasis supplied) FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 40 of 77
76. PW-11 Surinder Singh is the father of PW-2 Master Harneet Singh. He deposed, as under:
"I am residing on the above said address since 2002 and I am running the wholesale business of readymade garments at Gandhi Nagar. I have two sons namely Mandeep Singh and Harneet Singh. On 06.07.2013, I was present at my house. I sent my son Harneet to get two mobile phone numbers recharged. He had taken one mobile phone with him. The mobile numbers which were required to be recharged were 9210585212 and 8800421997. My son had taken the mobile having SIM No. 9210585212 with him. My son did not come back in 10 minutes. Thereafter, I went to the shopkeeper for inquiry. The shopkeeper had apprised me that your son had gone after recharging the above said SIM No. When I was returning back to my house, in the way, I found the back cover of the Samsung mobile having SIM No. 9210585212 near the house of 10/28, Rajinder Nagar. I and my wife kept on searching my son in neighborhood area. At about 6.41 p.m., a phone call has been received to the mobile of my wife having SIM No. whose complete No. I do not remember but last four digit are 2008. I do not remember in whose mobile no. this call has been received. The caller had given introduction as Mr. Khan and he had told my wife that he was having her son at gun point and demanded Rs. 1.5 Crore. He also threatened in case the money was not given he will eliminate my son (nahin to main uda dunga). Somebody in the neighborhood had informed to the police on 100 number.
XXXX by Sh. Kanhaiya Singhal, Ld. Counsel for the accused Amarjeet.
My wife knows about my earnings. I have not told anybody else specifically about my earnings. The house in which I am residing is my own house. I am having another house in Tilak Nagar. Some times, I used to send my son Harneet to get the mobile recharged. The recharge shop is at the distance of 100 foot from my residence. There is no other shop between the recharge shop and my house. There are many houses between the recharge shop and my house. My house is situated in residential colony. The Ganga Ram Hospital is also situated at a distance of ½ kms. from my house. There is no guard posted in our colony. At that time CCTV camera were not affixed in the colony. However, I got it fixed now.
FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 41 of 77 I went alone in search of my son after 10 minutes to the recharge shop. The shopkeeper told me that the mobile phone was recharged by him at the instance of my son and my son had left the shop. I had not found any other person in the said shop. It is incorrect to suggest that usually there was a crowd around 6.00 p.m. at the shop of recharge. During the period when I was searching my son, I met with the duty constable of the area and he advised me to search in the locality itself. I had not met any other person during this period.
XXXX by Sh. Sanjay Suri, Ld. Counsel for accused Harpreet.
I do not know how much money was given by wife to my son to get the mobile recharged. I had not asked the shopkeeper about the value of recharge made by my son. I was alone when I had gone to the shopkeeper for knowing well being of my son. I had not asked my wife even I had returned to my house I had not asked about the money given to my son by her. The shopkeeper had not issued any receipt for recharge.
At around 7.00 p.m., on the day we reached to the police station. I was carrying my mobile having SIM no. 8800421997. (Vol. police had taken my mobile to put it on the surveillance). No call came on my phone. However, the call has been received on my wife's mobile phone on the recurrence of two hours. I do not know from where the call was being received. However on inquiry, police officials apprised that the call was coming from Rewari, Bhiwadi. However, I am not confirmed whether it was said Rewari or Bhiwadi....."
(emphasis supplied)
77. PW-19 SI Om Prakash is a witness to recovery of Master Harneet Singh. He deposed, as under:
"On 07.07.2013, I was posted as Sub Inspector, IC- CIA, Rewari, Haryana. I had received an information that one boy aged about 11 years was kidnapped from Rajinder Nagar, Delhi on 06.07.2013 in the evening. After receiving information, I along with IO of this case, SI Pawan Kumar, SHO, GRP, Rewari reached the parking area of Rewari Railway Station where one Swift Car bearing registration No. DL 8CQ 2759 of white colour was found in which a Sikh boy was present in perplexed condition whose name later on revealed as Harneet.
FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 42 of 77 The IO had prepared the seizure memo of the boy and also seized the car. The memos are Ex.PW19/A and Ex.PW19/B respectively. Thereafter, IO recorded my statement.
XXXX by Sh. Sanjay Suri, Ld. Counsel for accused Harpreet Singh.
The child Harneet remained with us and officials of Delhi Police for about one hour. I myself did not got recorded the proceedings of presence of boy in the car no. DL 8C Q 2759. I did not give any detail of the car to the GRP Police or the Crime Branch to be noted down after the recovery of the car No. DL 8CQ 2759. I along with officials of Delhi Police and GRP Officials had left the spot together. We all separated together and I went to my office at Crime Branch. I do not remember, if I had made any DD entry about the return to the Crime Branch after the presence of the boy in the car as well as the recovery of the car in the area. (vol. normally we do entry). I have not brought any DD entry today. The police officials of Delhi Police had not taken any copy of the DD entry from me.
.....The car key was not inside the car. No public person was joined in the investigation by the police. Railway Station is situated at about 200 yards. No Government official from the railway station was called by the police officials to join the investigation. Only the police officials conducted the investigation and no public person was joined in the investigation and no statement of any public person was recorded. The Delhi Police officials met us at the railway station. We had received an information from the PCR that a boy has been kidnapped from Delhi and could be found in a car in parking area. It is correct that the above mentioned statement does not found mentioned in Ex.PW19/A and Ex.PW19/B. It is also correct that it is also not mentioned that source of information was PCR that a boy has been kidnapped from Delhi and could be found in a car in parking area in my statement given to the police. Whatever is mentioned in the statement is that I received information that a boy had been kidnapped from Delhi on 06.07.2013 in the evening. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely. It is wrong to suggest that the proceedings have been fabricated at the instance of Delhi Police.
FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 43 of 77 XXXX by Kanhaiya Singhal, Ld. Counsel for accused Amarjeet.
The information has been received at 10.30 am. At that time, I was in the City Rewari. After half an hour of receiving the information, I reached to the spot. I reached at the Rewari Railway Station Parking at about 11 am. I was the Crime Team incharge and I reached there along with my staff. I had not taken any finger print, chance print from there and photographs. (Vol. Delhi Police was investigating the matter). No chance prints, finger prints or any photograph were taken till I remained there. One Inspector Yadvender, SI Gajender were amongst the police officers of Delhi Police. My statement was recorded at the spot by Inspector Yadvender....."
(emphasis supplied)
78. PW-21 SI Pawan Kumar, SHO, GRP, Rewari Railway Station is a witness to recovery of Master Harneet Singh. He deposed, as under:
"On 07.07.2013, I was posted as SHO, GRP at PS Rewari Railway Station. On that day, I had received an information through wireless that one eleven year old boy was kidnapped from Rajinder Nagar Delhi. I had received a secret information that the child was sitting in a car which was parked in parking area of Rewari Railway Station. After receiving information, I reached to the parking area of the Rewari Railway Station where SI Om Prakash of CIA was present. In the meantime, officials of Delhi Police had also come and one boy namely Harmeet Singh found sitting in a Swift Car of White Color bearing registration No. DL 8CQ 2759. IO prepared the recovery memo of child which is Ex.PW19/A bearing my signature at point B and also seized car, vide seizure memo Ex.PW19/B bearing my signature at point B. XXXX by Sh. Sanjay Suri, Ld. Counsel for the accused Harpreet Singh.
The police station was about ½ kms away from where the car and the child found. I had recorded the entries on behalf of the IO at the GRP police station. Child Harneet remained with us for a period of about 1 ½ hours. I did not produce the child before the Illaqa Magistrate. Delhi Police never informed us that they were coming to our area for investigation.
FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 44 of 77 No public person was joined in investigation except the police officials. I had seen the child Harneet when he was present inside the car. The window pan of the side where the child was sitting in the car was open. When I called the child, he unlocked the door and opened it. The writing work was done at the spot. No public servant from the railway station nearby was called to join the investigation. It is wrong to suggest that I have been used as a false witness at the behest of police officials. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely.
XXXX by Sh. K. Singhal, Ld. Counsel for accused the Amarjeet.
The wireless message was received by me through VT The said information was received at 10 am on 07.07.2013. the secret information was received by me through telephone call on my mobile No. 8814888721. I cannot tell the number from which I had received the call. This secret information was received after 5-7 minutes of receiving WT message. At that time, I was in the area so I did not lodge GD. I was the SHO of PS GRP Rewari under which jurisdiction the area of parking and railway falls. I reached at the parking within half an hour after receiving the secret information. I had informed my senior officers in respect to presence of child in the car but I do not remember the mode of communication and the officer to whom the information was given. I reached first followed by Inspector Om Praksh, CIA and then by the Delhi Police. We all gathered at railway station then we went to parking area. I do not remember whether any crime team came to the spot, however photographs were taken by Delhi Police....."
(emphasis supplied)
79. PW-22 ASI Rajbeer Singh, PS GRP Railway is a witness to recovery of Master Harneet Singh. He deposed, as under:
"On 07.07.2013, I was posted as ASI at PS GRP Rewari. On that day, I was on petrolling duty in parking area of Rewari Railway Station. I saw that parking attendant was talking with one Sikh boy who was sitting on the back seat of a Swift Car. I also went there and I came to know the name of child as Harneet.
FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 45 of 77 The child wanted to talk to her mother on telephone. I gave my mobile phone to the child who dialed mobile no. of his mother and talked to her. Later on, I came to know through child that he had been kidnapped from Delhi. After some time, Delhi Police and other police staff of Rewari came. IO recorded my statement.
XXXX by Sh. Sanjay Suri, Ld. Counsel for the accused Harpreet Singh.
I had not given the telephone to the boy from the parking attendant. I had not got recorded any details about the fact stated to me by the child that he had been kidnapped from Delhi. The parking attendant was present near the car when I had reached near the Swift Car. The car was open when I reached near the car. The child was standing outside the car when I reached there. I had not gone to GRP police station after the child and the car was found within the jurisdiction of GRP Police station. I had no prior information about the child and the car in question. The police officials of Delhi Police reached the spot in 20-25 minutes from my reaching there at about 11.00 am. It is correct that the recovery memo of the car as well as the documents regarding the presence of the boy at the spot do not bear my signatures. It is also correct that the signatures of the parking attendant are also not there on the recovery memos on the car as well as the presence of the boy in the car i.e., Ex.PW19/A and Ex.PW19/B. It is correct that I along with the parking attendant were the only two persons who reached near the car and the boy for the first time. The police officials had reached afterwards. My statement was recorded at the spot. It is wrong to suggest that I was not present at the spot and I have been introduced as witness by the Delhi police officials."
(emphasis supplied)
80. PW-32 SI Gianender Singh is the Investigating Officer. He deposed, as under:
"On 06.07.2013, I was posted as SI at PS Rajinder Nagar. On that day at about 06:55 p.m., DD No. 30A Ex.PW26/A was assigned to me. I alongwith Ct. Kishan went to H. No. 10/54, Ground Floor, Old Rajinder Nagar, Delhi where the complainant Smt. Jasvinder Kaur met us and she informed me that her younger son Harneet, aged about 11 years, had been kidnapped.
FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 46 of 77 I recorded her statement Ex.PW10/A, bearing my signature at Point B. I prepared rukka Ex.PW32/A, bearing my signature at Point A and I handed over the same to Ct. Kishan to get the case registered. I made enquiries in neighborhood regarding the child. At about 9:00 p.m., Ct. Kishan returned to the spot and handed over to me rukka and copy of FIR. The husband of the complainant Mr. Surender Singh informed me that when his son Harneet had gone to get the mobile recharged, he had taken one mobile phone with him. He had to get two mobile numbers recharged. Mr. Surender Singh further told that he had found the back cover of mobile phone which his son had taken with me in the Gali near house No. 10/28, Old Rajinder Nagar, Delhi. I seized the said back side cover of the mobile, vide seizure memo already Ex.PW28/A, bearing my signature at Point B after converting the same into a sealed parcel and sealing the same with the seal of 'RJNGR-I'. Thereafter, I alongwith Ct. Kishan went to the shop No. 10/09, G.F., Old Rajinder Nagar where the child had gone to get the mobile phone recharged. One Gyanender Sharma met me there. He informed me that Harneet had gone at about 6:00 p.m. after getting two mobile numbers recharged. He told me the number of both the mobile phones which he had recorded in a register maintained by him in the course of his business. I seized the photocopy of the said page of register already Ex.PW5/8, through seizure memo Ex.PW5/A, bearing my signature at Point A. I recorded the statement of Sh. Gyanender Sharma and I returned to PS. I put mobile No. 9582525332 on surveillance from which the complainant had received ransom call. The mobile number of complainant 9213832008 was also put on surveillance. I informed senior officers about the progress of the case.
On 07.07.2013 at about 10:00 - 10:15 p.m., the complainant Jasvinder Kaur came to PS and informed me that she had received a call on her mobile phone from her son Harneet and Harneet was using some other mobile number. Complainant further told that her son had told her that the father of Tarandeep had taken away him (Harneet) in a car and had left him at Rewari Railway Station. On the basis of information received through surveillance of mobile No. 9582525332, teams had already been sent to Bhiwadi, Rajasthan. One of those teams was directed to reach Rewari Railway Station.
FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 47 of 77 On that day at about 12:00 p.m., Insp. Pramod Gupta, then SHO of PS DBG Road came to PS Rajinder Nagar. Accused Sarpal Singh Sodhi present in the court (correctly identified) was accompanying him. Insp. Pramod Gupta told me that he had gone to Bhiwadi, Rajasthan on the direction of senior officers and he met with the accused Sarpal Singh Sodhi at House No. 20/8, UIT Colony, Bhiwari, Rajasthan. He further told me that he had served a notice to Sarpal Singh Sodhi to appear before IO of this case and he had accompanied him to PS Rajinder Nagar. I recorded statement of Insp. Pramod Gupta and relieved him. I interrogated the accused Sarpal Singh Sodhi who admitted his involvement in this case. He informed me that he had committed this offence with Harpreet Singh. I arrested the accused Sarpal Singh Sodhi at about 2:30 p.m., vide arrest memo already Ex.PW28/A, bearing my signature at Point B. I took his personal search, vide memo already Ex.PW28/C, bearing my signature at Point B. Two mobile phones were recovered from the possession of the accused Sarpal Singh Sodhi and I seized them, vide seizure memo already Ex.PW28/E, bearing my signature at Point B. On checking of Nokia Model 308, connection No. 9636066628 was found running in that mobile phone. Accused told me that he had used this mobile number to contact Harpreet on his mobile No. 8826344453. Accused made his disclosure statement which is already Ex.PW28/D, bearing my signature at Point B and of accused at Point C. Accused Sarpal Singh Sodhi told me that Harpreet had given him two similar mobile phones alongwith SIM Cards and one of mobile phone in SIM Card was used to make ransom call (Objected to). He further told that he could get the said mobile phones recovered from his house. Insp. Yadhuvinder Singh, then SHO of PS Prasad Nagar came to PS Rajinder Nagar at about 4:15 p.m. and child Harmeet was alongwith him. He told that he had recovered the child from a car bearing registration No. DL 8CQ 2759 parked in the the parking of Rewari Railway Station. He handed over to me the recovery memo of child, seizure memo of the car and the statements of two police officials of Rewari. I placed those documents on record. I recorded statement of Insp. Yudhvinder Singh and relieved him. I inquired the child Harneet and recorded his statement in question
- answer form. At about 5:15 p.m., the accused Harpreet Singh present in the court (correctly identified) came to PS. FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 48 of 77 Child Harneet after seeing accused Harpreet Singh told me that he was the same uncle who had taken him away in the car and had left him at Rewari Railway Station. Complainant Smt. Jasvinder Kaur was also present in the PS at that time and she identified the accused Harpreet Singh whom she knew previously. I sent the child Harneet to hospital for his medical examination. I interrogated the accused Harpreet Singh. He informed me that he had kidnapped the child Harneet alongwith his associates Sarpal Singh Sodhi and Amarjeet Singh and he had used his (Harpreet) car. (Objected to). I arrested the accused Harpreet Singh at about 6:00 p.m., vide arrest memo already Ex.PW28/F, bearing my signature at Point B. His personal search was taken, vide memo already Ex.PW28/G, bearing my signature at Point B. Accused Harpreet Singh made his disclosure statement already Ex.PW28/H, bearing my signature at Point B. Two keys and remote sensor of car alongwith parking slip No. 3661 dated 07.07.2013 were recovered from the possession of the accused and I seized them, vide seizure memo Ex.PW28/I, bearing my signature at Point B and the parking slip is Ex.PW7/A. One mobile phone was also recovered from the possession of the accused Harpreet which I seized, vide seizure memo Ex.PW32/B, bearing my signature at Point A. Again said, the mobile phone was not seized on the same day as we had to trace third accused with the help of said mobile phone so it was seized on the next day. Accused Harpreet had disclosed that he had purchased two mobile phones alongwith two SIM Cards through one Kanwaljeet Singh and he had gone to Sarpal Singh Sodhi alongwith Kanwaljeet Singh to handover the mobile phones to Sarpal Singh Sodhi. Accused Harpreet further told that in order to check whether SIMS were activated, Kanwaljeet Singh put the SIM in his mobile phone on 29.04.2013. After medical examination of accused Harpreet Singh, he was lodged in the lockup. On 08.07.2013, 03 days police custody remand of accused Sarpal Singh Sodhi and Harpreet Singh and on 09.07.2013, the accused Sarpal Singh Sodhi led the police party to his house at Bhiwadi, Rajasthan. The police party was consisting of myself, ASI Prakashveer, Ct. Raj Singh and Ct. Kishan Kumar. The keys of the car were also taken from MHC(M). Accused Sarpal Singh Sodhi got recovered two mobile phones from the pocket of his blue color pant which was kept on the sofa in the first room on the right side.
FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 49 of 77 I made a call from one mobile phone on my mobile phone No. and it was the same number from which ransom call was made i.e. mobile No. 9582525332. Another mobile phone was not having SIM. After noting down the IMEI numbers of mobile phones, I seized them, vide seizure memo already Ex.PW28/J, bearing my signature at Point C after converting them into two different sealed parcels and sealing them with the seal of 'RJNGR-I'. Mark SM-1 was given to the mobile phone which was having SIM Card of 9582525332 and another mobile phone was marked as SM-2. I prepared site plan of place of recovery of mobile phone and same is already Ex.PW28/K, bearing my signature at Point B. Thereafter, we went to Rewari Railway Station where in the parking area, Maruti Swift Car No. DL 8CQ 2759 of white color was found. One parking attendant Monu Sharma was present. The car was opened with the help of the key and on the checking of the car, one jute bag, 2 plastic bottles having filled 3/4th with petrol, 08 packets of agarbatti, one 100 gm pack of Dabur Honey, a piece of thin rope (sutli) of 34 yards, one 2 ft. iron rod were found in the dicky of the car. All the above said articles were kept in the jute bag and the bag was sealed with the seal of 'RJNGR-I' and same was seized, vide seizure memo already Ex.PW28/L, bearing my signature at point B. I recorded the statement of Monu Sharma but he refused to sign any document of the proceedings. I prepared the site plan of the place where the car was parked. The site plan is Ex.PW28/M, bearing my signature at Point C. We returned back to PS. The car was brought by Ct. Kishan. The case property was deposited with MHC(M) and I recorded the statements of the witnesses.
On 11.07.2013, the accused Harpreet took us to the spot and identified the place from where he had kidnapped the child. I prepared pointing out memo Ex.PW32/C, bearing my signature at Point A. Thereafter, we returned to PS. PW Kanwaljeet Singh met in the PS and he corroborated the version of the accused Harpreet and Sarpal Singh Sodhi regarding the purchase of two mobile phones alongwith SIM Cards. He also produced his mobile phone in which he had checked the activation of one of the SIM Card. I seized the mobile phone of Kanwaljeet Singh of Nokia 6070, vide seizure memo already Ex.PW14/A, bearing my signature at Point B. Both the accused persons were produced before Ld. MM and was remanded to JC.
FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 50 of 77 Prior to that on 10.07.2013, I got the statement of child Harneet recorded under Section 164 of Cr.PC. On 23.07.2013, I received information from ASI Nirmal Singh of Crime Branch that third accused of this case namely Amarjeet Singh @ Jitta was arrested by him and he would produced him in Rohini Court. I alongwith ASI Prakashveer went to Rohini Court where the accused Amarjeet Singh was produced in muffled face before Ld. MM and after taking permission from Ld. MM, I interrogated the accused Amarjeet Singh and arrested him, vide arrest memo already Ex.PW30/B, bearing my signature at Point B. Accused Amarjeet Singh is also present in the court (correctly identified). I recorded the disclosure statement of the accused Amarjeet Singh, vide Ex.PW30/C, bearing my signature at Point B. As TIP of the accused Amarjeet Singh was to be conducted so he was remanded in JC for two days. I recorded statements of ASI Nirmal Singh and HC Anil. On 25.07.2013, the accused Amarjeet Singh was produced in muffled face for TIP but the accused Amarjeet Singh refused to take part in TIP proceedings. One day police custody remand was taken and the accused identified the place from where he had lifted the child, vide memo Ex.PW28/N, bearing my signature at Point B. ASI Nirmal Singh had seized the mobile phone of Amarjeet Singh in his personal search. After taking permission from the court, I seized the said mobile phone, vide seizure memo Ex.PW32/D, bearing my signature at Point A. XXXX by Sh. Sanjay Suri, Ld. Counsel for the accused Harpreet Singh.
I recorded statements of parents of the child outside the house. I did not record the statement of any neighbor of the shop where the child had gone to get the mobile connection recharged. I did not seize the register of the said shop. I had seen the said register and the relevant entry at the shop. I did not take the copy of sales tax registration of that shop. I did not collect any authorization of any service provider to show that the said shopkeeper was authorized to recharge the amount of mobile connection. I had not given the instructions to get the conversation recorded of mobile phone No. 9582525332 when I put the same on surveillance. Vol. The process of conversation recording was very lengthy. The permission from Special CP of Special Cell was required for that purpose.
FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 51 of 77 It is wrong to suggest that if a genuine request is made to crack a case, permissions are given immediately. It is wrong to suggest that I have wrongly stated that the permission to get the recording is done, it takes a very long time. The parents of child have come to the PS by 10:00 a.m. Vol. They had also come in the night to get information about their child. The first police party had returned to PS alongwith the accused Sarpal Singh Sodhi. No independent witness had joined the investigation at the time of seizure of mobile phones from the accused Sarpal Singh Sodhi.
The parking attendant of Rewari Railway was not accompanying Insp. Yadhuvinder Singh when he came to PS alongwith child. I had almost recorded statement of child before reaching of the accused Harpreet Singh in PS. No public witness was called at the time of arrest of the accused Harpreet Singh. Vol. He himself surrendered before me. I did not take the signature of parents of child on the seizure of key which are mentioned in Ex.PW32/B.....Accused Harpreet was not kept in muffled face. I did not get the accused Harpreet Singh identified through parking attendant Monu Sharma. The Maruti Swift car was locked when I saw it in the parking of Rewari Railway. It is wrong to suggest that Maruti car was in an open state that the doors were open. I did not inform local Police Station of Rewari. No police officer from any local PS or GRP Police Station met me there. It is correct that the articles like jute bag, plastic bottle, agarbatti, Dabur honey, a piece of thin rope and iron rod are easily available in the market.....It is correct that the details of articles recovered from the car are not mentioned in site plan Ex.PW28/M. Vol. The recovery memo of articles was prepared separately.
The mobile phone of parents of child were not put on surveillance or for conversation recording. The parents of child did not receive any call in my presence as they used to come in PS off and on. I asked them to stay in the PS but no call was received during their stay in PS. I did not ask them to deposit their phones with me. I instructed them to receive the calls and inform me about the conversation. They came to PS one or two times on that time. I had checked the call log of the mobile phone of the parents of the child.
FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 52 of 77 I do not know as to how the phone of Sarpal Singh Sodhi was tracked or at what time we came to know about his whereabouts but I first came to know regarding the phone and whereabouts of Kanwaljeet Singh......It is correct that in all the documents prepared by us at Rewari and also the witnesses recorded at Rewari do not mention the presence of Sarpal Singh Sodhi with us. Vol. The reference of Sarpal Singh Sodhi has come in the statements of witnesses which were recorded by me at Rewari and at PS. It is correct that after going through statement of Monu Sharma which is already exhibited, I state that no name of Sarpal Singh Sodhi mentioned in the statement.....
XXXX by Sh. Diwarkar Chaudhary, Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for the accused Sarpal Singh Sodhi. .....I reached the house of the complainant at 7:05 p.m. Complainant was standing at the gate of his house alongwith her husband, elder son and some other persons whom I do not know. I remained there till 8:00 p.m. The statement of complainant was recorded by me in my handwriting. I cannot tell the names of neighbors from whom I inquired about the child. Ct. Kishan went to PS for registration of FIR at 8:00 p.m. and he returned to the spot at about 9:00 p.m. Vol. At that time, I was in the locality in connection with the investigation.....It is correct that such type of cover is available in the market. I handed over the seal of RJNGR1 to Ct. Kishan after sealing the cover of mobile phone in a sealed parcel. I had seen the register and the relevant entry was in the register. I did not see the dates for which the said register pertains. I met the complainant on 07.07.2013 in PS in investigation room. She remained there for about one hour. I recorded her supplementary statement.....The house of the accused Sarpal Singh Sodhi of single storeyed. I cannot tell the area of the house. I had gone only in the room from where recovery was affected, however, I had seen inside the house from that room. No public person joined the proceedings of recovery of mobile phones despite request made to 3-4 persons who did not disclose their names and addresses. I did not call any public witness on the way to the house of the accused. One boy and one another person were in the house. They refused to sign the document. I was having my mobile phone at that time. No videography of proceedings was got conducted in respect of recovery of mobile phones.....
FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 53 of 77 I had gone there by my car. I do not remember if there was any toll on the way. No separate memo regarding handing over of seal was prepared at the time of taking and handing over of seal..... XXXX by Sh. K. Singhal, Ld. Counsel for the accused Amarjeet Singh.
I did not put the information of missing child on ZIP net. Vol. The information was given to me regarding the kidnapping of the child. I came to know about the place from where the ransom calls were made in the midnight of 06/07.07.2013. I did not sensitize the local police of the area from where calls were being made. Vol. As there was a threat to the life of the child.....I cannot say as to what time is consumed for going from Rajinder Nagar to Daruhera in evening hours. I did not try to recover the mobile phone of child as the place of throwing away the mobile was not disclosed. The statement of child under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 10.07.2013. I recorded the statement of child on 07.07.2013. I received the copy of statement of child under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. on the same day and I had gone through the same. The mother of the child used to come alongwith him to the PS after 10.07.2013. It is wrong to suggest that the child did not say anything about the accused Amarjeet Singh in his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and therefore, I recorded the statement of child on my own on the back date of 07.07.2013 to create false evidence against the accused Amarjeet Singh.....I came to know about the involvement of Amarjeet Singh on 07.07.2013. The name of father of the accused Amarjeet Singh and his complete address did not come in my knowledge. Vol. Accused Harpreet Singh had told the name of the accused Amarjeet Singh and about the area where he resided. I did not obtain any warrant to arrest the accused Amarjeet Singh. I had visited the house of the accused Amarjeet Singh many times prior to his arrest. The house was found locked as the entire family had left the house. Accused Harpreet had pointed out the house of the accused Amarjeet Singh in the night on 07.07.2013. No pointing out memo was prepared. I inquired from the neighbor about the accused Amarjeet Singh and they told that Amarjeet Singh alongwith his family had gone in his Indica Car. I did not take any photograph from neighbor and relatives of the accused Amarjeet Singh as they were not having any such photograph....."
(emphasis supplied) FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 54 of 77 ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION:
81. The case of the prosecution is founded on twelve planks, as under:
(a) The evidence of PW-2 Master Harneet Singh;
(b) The recovery of Master Harneet Singh alongwith Car No. DL 8CQ 2759 from Parking, Rewari Railway Station;
(c) Recovery of keys of Car No. DL 8CQ 2759 alongwith sensor and parking slip Ex.PW7/A from the accused Harpreet Singh;
(d) Recovery of incriminating articles i.e. one 2 feet long iron rod, one jute bag, one plastic bottle containing 2 litre of petrol, 9 packets of agarbatti and one 3 feet long thin rope from diggi of Car No. DL 8CQ 2759;
(e) PW-14 Kanwaljit Singh arranged two mobile phones alongwith SIM at the instance of the accused Harpreet Singh and handed over them to the accused Sarpal Singh Sodhi;
(f) The recovery of mobile phone containing Vodafone SIM No. 9582525332, used for making ransom call on mobile No. 9213832008 of PW-10 Smt. Jasvinder Kaur, from house of the accused Sarpal Singh Sodhi;
(g) Vodafone SIM No. 9582525332 was procured in the name of Smt. Rani;
(h) The accused Harpreet Singh obtained Airtel SIM No. 8826344453 by misusing photograph and Voter I-card and forging signature of PW-4 S. Jasvinder Singh;
(i) Call Detail Records (CDR) pertaining to conversation between the accused Harpreet Singh and Sarpal Singh Sodhi from their Airtel SIM Nos. 9636066628 and 8826344453;
(j) Abscondence of the accused Amarjeet Singh @ Jeeta;
(k) The accused Amarjeet Singh @ Jeeta refused to participate in Test Identification Parade (TIP);
(l) Motive.
FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 55 of 77 THE EVIDENCE OF PW-2 MASTER HARNEET SINGH:
82. The first issue before the Court is whether the evidence of PW-2 Master Harneet Singh is reliable. The second issue is whether the prosecution evidence is contaminated with material contradictions, improvements, defects and inherent improbabilities rendering it not worthy of credence.
83. PW-2 Master Harneet Singh was around 11 years at the time of incident. He was studying in 6 th standard in a public school.
84. In Pradeep vs. State of Haryana, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 777, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held, as under:
"9. It is a well-settled principle that corroboration of the testimony of a child witness is not a rule but a measure of caution and prudence. A child witness of tender age is easily susceptible to tutoring. However, that by itself is no ground to reject the evidence of a child witness. The Court must make careful scrutiny of the evidence of a child witness. The Court must apply its mind to the question whether there is a possibility of the child witness being tutored. Therefore, scrutiny of the evidence of a child witness is required to be made by the Court with care and caution."
85. In Radhey Shyam and Others vs. State of Rajasthan, (2023) 6 SCC 151, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held, as under:
"6. The age of PW 3 was 12 years at the time of the recording of her evidence. Evidence of PW 3 cannot be rejected only on the ground that her age was 12 years. However, being a child witness, her evidence needs a very careful evaluation with greater circumspection considering the fact that a child witness can always be easily tutored. Therefore, we have made a careful scrutiny of her version."
FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 56 of 77
86. PW-2 Master Harneet Singh was around 11 years. He was studying in class 6th in Guru Harkishan Public School, Karol Bagh, Delhi. The accused Harpreet Singh was father of his classmate Tarandeep. PW-10 Smt. Jasvinder Kaur used to meet Harpreet Singh during Parent Teacher Meeting. She had a cordial relation with Smt. Simran, wife of the accused Harpreet Singh. She used to have conversation with her regarding homework of Master Harneet Singh. Smt. Simran used to visit her house. However, Master Harneet Singh did not name him in his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW9/A. In the said statement, he stated that 'Khan Uncle' chased and apprehended him and made him to inhale chloroform and taken him to Haryana in a car where he left him in Parking, Rewari Railway Station. Master Harneet Singh is a Sikh boy and he can distinguish between a 'Khan' and 'Sikh'. PW-7 Monu Sharma, Parking Attendant, Rewari Railway Station has not identified the accused Harpreet Singh. He stated that he cannot tell as to who was driving the car. He even stated that he did not remember whether the driver of the car was a Sikh or not. In his cross- examination, PW-7 Monu Sharma stated that Master Harneet Singh stated that his father had left him in Parking, Rewari Railway Station and he wanted to talk to him. The prosecution did not cross-examine PW-7 Monu Sharma on this statement.
87. PW-10 Smt. Jasvinder Kaur stated that on 07.07.2013 at about 10.00 a.m., Master Harneet Singh called her on her mobile No. 9213832008 from mobile No. 9416295289 and informed her that the accused Harpreet Singh, father of his friend Tarandeep had brought him in a car and left him near Rewari Railway Station.
FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 57 of 77
88. However, PW-10 Smt. Jasvinder Kaur has not stated that she immediately informed PW-32 SI Gianender Singh regarding the receipt of the said call. PW-32 SI Gianender Singh stated that on 07.07.2013 at about 10.00 - 10.15 a.m. (though mentioned as pm), PW-10 Smt. Jasvinder Kaur visited police station and informed him that she had received a call from PW-2 Master Harneet Singh that father of Tarandeep had taken him in a car and left him at Rewari Railway Station. However, there is no DD entry pertaining to communication of the said call to PW-32 SI Gianender Singh.
89. The case of the prosecution is that Insp. Yudhvinder Singh, SHO, PS Prasad Nagar recovered Master Harneet Singh from Parking, Rewari Railway Station. However, the prosecution has not examined him.
90. PW-32 SI Gianender Singh stated that on 07.07.2013 at about 04.15 p.m., Insp. Yudhvinder Singh alongwith Master Harneet Singh reached PS Rajinder Nagar. He further stated that on 07.07.2013 at about 05.15 p.m., the accused Harpreet Singh came to PS Rajinder Nagar and Master Harneet Singh identified him as the 'uncle' who had taken him in the car and left him at Rewari Railway Station. At that time, PW-10 Smt. Jasvinder Kaur was also present and she identified the accused Harpreet Singh. In his cross-examination, he stated that he had almost recorded statement of Master Harneet Singh before the accused Harpreet Singh reached PS Rajinder Nagar. PW-10 Smt. Jasvinder Kaur stated that Master Harneet Singh had narrated the entire incident as to 'what had happened' and 'who had done' before visiting the hospital. She stated that she had told the incident to the doctor also.
FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 58 of 77
91. PW-8 Dr. Tapas, Senior Resident, LHMC Hospital, New Delhi examined PW-2 Master Harneet Singh and prepared MLC Ex.PW8/A at 06.15 p.m. on 07.07.2013. It is relevant to note that the name or any reference to the accused Harpreet Singh is not mentioned in MLC Ex.PW8/A. History of incident is alleged as 'kidnapping by unknown person at 06.00 p.m.'.
92. According to PW-2 Master Harneet Singh, he was rendered unconscious by making him to inhale chloroform and he was made to drink a golden colour tablet dissolved in water. However, MLC Ex.PW8/A states that there is no history of 'unconsciousness'. It is relevant to note that PW-8 Dr. Tapas stated that he did not detect any symptom of chloroform in examination of Master Harneet Singh.
93. It is relevant to note that there is no reference of another person except 'Khan Uncle' in the incident of kidnapping in statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW9/A. In his evidence, PW-2 Master Harneet Singh stated that there were two persons one Harpreet Singh and another i.e. Amarjeet Singh @ Jeeta in the said car. He stated that the accused Amarjeet Singh @ Jeeta was dropped on the way and the accused Harpreet Singh had driven the said car and left him near Rewari Railway Station. However, these facts are not stated in his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW9/A.
94. On examination of evidence of PW-2 Master Harneet Singh, it is evident that it does not inspire confidence and it is 'wholly unreliable'. Moreover, the evidence of Master Harneet Singh, in conjunction with other prosecution evidence, as referred hereinafter, does not appear to be reliable and worthy of credence.
FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 59 of 77 RECOVERY OF PW-2 MASTER HARNEET SINGH ALONGWITH CAR NO. DL 8CQ 2759 FROM PARKING, REWARI RAILWAY STATION:
95. The case of the prosecution is that Insp. Yudhvinder Singh, SHO, PS Prasad Nagar recovered Master Harneet Singh alongwith Car No. DL 8CQ 2759 from Parking, Rewari Railway Station, Haryana.
96. As already noted above, PW-2 Master Harneet Singh stated that on 07.07.2013 at about 09.30 a.m., when he regained consciousness, he found himself in car in Parking, Rewari Railway Station. He stated that on hearing his cries, PW- 7 Monu Sharma, Parking Attendant, Rewari Railway Station pulled down window glasses with his hands and he informed him that he want to talk to his father. He stated that he talked to his father through his mobile phone. PW-7 Monu Sharma stated that while taking round of parking, he saw one boy sitting inside the car on the rear seat and window was rolled down a little bit and he opened the gate and taken out the boy. He stated that the said boy talked to his father through his mobile phone. However, PW- 11 Surinder Singh, father of Master Harneet Singh did not depose that he had received any call on his mobile phone from Master Harneet Singh. He has not stated anything besides receipt of ransom call at 06.41 p.m. on 06.07.2013. His evidence is totally silent on the aspect of receipt of call from Master Harneet Singh and his recovery from Parking, Rewari Railway Station. There is no DD entry that PW-10 Smt. Jasvinder Kaur informed PW-32 SI Gianender Singh that she had received a call on 07.07.2013 at 10.00 a.m. from Master Harneet Singh from mobile No. 9416295289 on her mobile No. 9213832008.
FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 60 of 77
97. There is no DD entry pertaining to departure of Insp. Yudhvinder Singh, SHO, PS Prasad Nagar to Rewari Railway Station to recover Master Harneet Singh. Moreover, the prosecution has also not examined Insp. Yudhvinder Singh to prove that he went to Rewari Railway Station and recovered Master Harneet Singh alongwith Car No. DL 8CQ 2759. There is no arrival entry of Insp. Yudhvinder Singh in PS Rewari Railway Station or PS GRP, Rewari Railway Station. PW-19 SI Om Prakash, In-Charge, CIA, Rewari, Haryana and PW-21 SI Pawan Kumar, SHO, PS GRP, Rewari Railway Station were recovery witnesses. However, PW-19 SI Om Prakash stated that he did not communicate particulars of the car to GRP Police Station or Crime Branch. There is no DD entry pertaining to their departure and arrival to their respective police station. There is no DD entry pertaining to receipt of PCR call regarding kidnapping and presence of Master Harneet Singh in the said car in Parking, Rewari Railway Station. He stated that he reached at Parking, Rewari Railway Station at about 11.00 a.m. on 07.07.2013. He stated that Insp. Yudhvinder Singh and SI Gajender were amongst the police officers of Delhi Police who were present there. However, it is not brought on recored as to how Insp. Yudhvinder Singh reached Rewari Railway Station to recover Master Harneet Singh. PW-21 SI Pawan Kumar, SHO, PS GRP, Rewari Railway Station stated that he received wireless message at 10.00 a.m. on 07.07.2013. However, there is no GD entry pertaining to receipt of the said wireless message. In fact, there is no record pertaining to visit of Insp. Yudhvinder Singh, PW-19 SI Om Prakash and PW-21 SI Pawan Kumar to Parking, Rewari Railway Station on 07.07.2013 at 11.00 a.m. FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 61 of 77
98. As already noted above, the case of the prosecution is that on 07.07.2013 at about 10.00 a.m., PW-2 Master Harneet Singh called PW-10 Smt. Jasvinder Kaur on her mobile No. 9213832008 through mobile No. 9416295289 of PW-7 Monu Sharma. Surprisingly, PW-22 ASI Rajbeer Singh, PS GRP, Rewari Railway Station stated that Master Harneet Singh talked to her mother through his mobile phone. It is relevant to note that PW-7 Monu Sharma has not made any mention of PW-22 ASI Rajbeer Singh. He stated that officials of Delhi Police reached at Parking, Rewari Railway Station at about 11.00 a.m. on 07.07.2013. However, PW-19 SI Om Prakash and PW-21 SI Pawan Kumar do not state anything regarding PW-22 ASI Rajbeer Singh. Recovery memos Ex.PW19/A and Ex.PW19/B do not bear signatures of PW-7 Monu Sharma and PW-22 ASI Rajbeer Singh.
99. Therefore, the prosecution failed to establish that on 07.07.2013 at about 11.00 a.m., PW-2 Master Harneet Singh alongwith Car No. DL 8CQ 2759 was recovered from Parking, Rewari Railway Station.
RECOVERY OF KEYS OF CAR NO. DL 8CQ 2759 ALONGWITH SENSOR AND PARKING SLIP EX.PW7/A FROM THE ACCUSED HARPREET SINGH:
100. The case of the prosecution is that keys of Car No. DL 8CQ 2759 alongwith sensor and parking slip Ex.PW7/A were recovered from the accused Harpreet Singh.
101. As noted above, on 07.07.2013 at about 10.00 a.m., Master Harneet Singh informed the incident, name of the accused Harpreet Singh and his location to PW-10 Smt. Jasvinder Kaur on her mobile phone through mobile No. 9416295289.
FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 62 of 77
102. However, PW-10 Smt. Jasvinder Kaur, in her cross-
examination, stated that on 07.07.2013 at about 06.40 a.m., she alongwith police left police station for the house of the accused Harpreet Singh. PW-32 SI Gianender Singh has not stated anything in this regard. The prosecution has not explained as to why the police officials alongwith PW-10 Smt. Jasvinder Kaur reached near house of the accused Harpreet Singh at 07.00 a.m. on 07.07.2013 when there was no reason to suspect his complicity in the offence. Further, there is no DD entry pertaining to receipt of the said call from Master Harneet Singh and communication thereof to PW-32 SI Gianender Singh. There is no DD entry pertaining to instructions to Insp. Yudhvinder Singh, SHO, PS Prasad Nagar for departure to Rewari Railway Station for recovery of Master Harneet Singh. There is no record pertaining to efforts made by PW-32 SI Gianender Singh regarding apprehension of the accused Harpreet Singh on receipt of call from Master Harneet Singh regarding complicity of the accused Harpreet Singh in the offence. There is no record pertaining to communication of the said call from Master Harneet Singh to GRP, Rewari Railway Station or PS Rewari Railway Station.
103. The case of the prosecution is that on 07.07.2013 at about 05.15 p.m., the accused Harpreet Singh visited PS Rajinder Nagar and Master Harneet Singh identified him as one of the offenders. It is further case of the prosecution that keys of the car and car parking receipt were recovered from his possession, vide seizure memo Ex.PW28/I. However, seizure memo Ex.PW28/I does not bear signature of PW-10 Smt. Jasvinder Kaur.
FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 63 of 77
104. At this stage, it is relevant to note that PW-7 Monu Sharma stated that he had lowered the glass of the driver's side of the car after switching ignition with the key. This statement of PW-7 Monu Sharma was not challenged by the prosecution. Moreover, it is highly improbable that a person would appear before the police alongwith the keys of the car and parking slip when he is involved in the incident.
105. As regards reliance of the prosecution on parking slip Ex.PW7/A, it can be stated that PW-7 Monu Sharma stated that he cannot identify the person to whom he had issued the said parking slip. He did not identify the accused Harpreet Singh. The prosecution did not get Test Identification Parade (TIP) of the accused Harpreet Singh conducted. The prosecution did not produce the entire bill book containing the said receipt. Such standalone parking slip cannot be an evidence of the fact of recovery of the said car from Parking, Rewari Railway Station.
106. Therefore, the prosecution failed to establish the recovery of keys of the car and parking slip Ex.PW7/A from the accused Harpreet Singh.
RECOVERY OF INCRIMINATING ARTICLES I.E. ONE 2 FEET LONG IRON ROD, ONE JUTE BAG, ONE PLASTIC BOTTLE CONTAINING 2 LITRE OF PETROL, 9 PACKETS OF AGARBATTI AND ONE 3 FEET LONG THIN ROPE FROM DIGGI OF CAR NO. DL 8CQ 2759:
107. The case of the prosecution is that on 07.07.2013 at about 11.00 a.m., Master Harneet Singh alongwith Car No. DL 8CQ 2759 was recovered from Parking, Rewari Railway Station, vide memos Ex.PW19/A and Ex.PW19/B respectively.
FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 64 of 77
108. It is further case of the prosecution that on 09.07.2013, PW-32 SI Gianender Singh alongwith PW-27 Ct. Raj Singh, PW-28 Ct. Kishan Kumar and PW-30 ASI Prakash Veer recovered aforesaid articles from Car No. DL 8CQ 2759 in Parking, Rewari Railway Station. It is relevant to note that according to the case of the prosecution, keys of the car were recovered on 07.07.2013 at 05.15 p.m. in PS Rajinder Nagar. There is no explanation as to why the said recovery was not effected immediately after recovery of keys of the car. Secondly, there is no superdari memo pertaining to safe custody of the said car with PW-7 Monu Sharma in Parking, Rewari Railway Station. Thirdly, seizure memo of the said articles Ex.PW28/L does not bear signature of PW-7 Monu Sharma. There is no DD entry in PS GRP, Rewari Railway Station or PS Rewari Railway Station regarding presence of the said car in Parking, Rewari Railway Station from 07.07.2013 to 09.07.2013. There is no witness from PS Rewari Railway Station or PS GRP, Rewari Railway Station pertaining to search and seizure of the said articles from the said car. There is no DD entry pertaining to visit of PW-32 SI Gianender Singh alongwith the accused Sarpal Singh Sodhi to Parking, Rewari Railway Station on 09.07.2013 either in PS Rewari Railway Station or PS GRP, Rewari Railway Station. PW-32 SI Gianender Singh stated that he had not informed local police of Rewari. He stated that he did not join any police official from PS Rewari or PS GRP, Rewari Railway Station in search and seizure proceedings. He stated that such articles are easily available in market. The prosecution failed to establish the recovery of the said incriminating articles from the aforesaid car in Parking, Rewari Railway Station.
FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 65 of 77 PW-14 KANWALJIT SINGH ARRANGED TWO MOBILE PHONES ALONGWITH SIM AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ACCUSED HARPREET SINGH AND HANDED OVER THEM TO THE ACCUSED SARPAL SINGH SODHI:
109. The case of the prosecution is that PW-14 Kanwaljit Singh arranged two mobile phones alongwith two SIMS at the instance of the accused Harpreet Singh and handed over them to the accused Sarpal Singh Sodhi.
110. In this regard, the prosecution examined PW-14 Kanwaljit Singh. He stated that he is employed with M/s. Super Communication, Guru Nanak Nagar, Tilak Nagar, Delhi and was learning repair work of mobile phones. He stated that the accused Harpreet Singh used to visit his shop. He stated that he arranged two Chinese mobile phones and two SIM cards from Guru Kirpa Communication and handed over them to the accused Harpreet Singh for Rs. 2,200/-. He stated that he alongwith the accused Harpreet Singh went to Bhiwadi, Rajasthan and handed over the said two mobile phones and the said SIM cards to the accused Sarpal Singh Sodhi. PW-18 S. Mahender Singh stated that he had sold two Chinese mobile phones to PW-14 Kanwaljit Singh. He stated that he had not sold SIMs to PW-14 Kanwaljit Singh.
There is no bill or receipt pertaining to the sale transaction of the said mobile phones. There is no record pertaining to IMEI numbers of the said mobile phones. He stated that he did not remember as to how many mobile phones were sold to PW-14 Kanwaljit Singh. He stated that he cannot identify the said mobile phones. He stated that he used to purchase mobile phones from Karol Bagh market.
FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 66 of 77
111. From the evidence of PW-14 Kanwaljit Singh and PW-18 S. Mahender Singh, it is proved that PW-18 S. Mahender Singh used to sell mobile phones to PW-14 Kanwaljit Singh. However, there is no evidence that mobile phones and SIM card, allegedly recovered from the accused Sarpal Singh Sodhi, vide seizure memo Ex.PW28/J, are the mobile phones and SIM which were sold by PW-14 Kanwaljit Singh to the accused Harpreet Singh and handed over to the accused Sarpal Singh Sodhi.
THE RECOVERY OF MOBILE PHONE CONTAINING VODAFONE SIM NO. 9582525332, USED FOR MAKING RANSOM CALL ON MOBILE NO. 9213832008 OF PW-10 SMT. JASVINDER KAUR, FROM HOUSE OF THE ACCUSED SARPAL SINGH SODHI:
112. The case of the prosecution is that on 07.07.2013 at about 12.00 noon, PW-20 Insp. Pramod Gupta, SHO, PS DBG Road brought the accused Sarpal Singh Sodhi from Bhiwadi, Rajasthan. It is further case of the prosecution that location of the accused Sarpal Singh Sodhi was located on account of technical surveillance of Vodafone SIM No. 9582525332. PW-32 SI Gianender Singh stated that on the basis of information received through technical surveillance of Vodafone SIM No. 9582525332, the teams were sent to Bhiwadi, Rajasthan. It is quite surprising that PW-20 Insp. Pramod Gupta could reach to H. No. 8/20, UIT Colony, Bhiwadi, Rajasthan on the basis of technical surveillance of the said mobile number. It is relevant to note that the said mobile number was not in the name of the accused Sarpal Singh Sodhi but it was in the name of one Rani who could not be located.
FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 67 of 77
113. There is no DD entry regarding departure of PW-20 Insp. Pramod Gupta to Bhiwadi, Rajasthan. There is no arrival entry of PW-20 Insp. Pramod Gupta in Jurisdictional Police Station of Bhiwadi, Rajasthan. Faced with this, PW-32 SI Gianender Singh stated that he does not know as to how the phone of the accused Sarpal Singh Sodhi was tracked and at what time, they came to know about his whereabouts. The entire proceedings pertaining to the apprehension of the accused Sarpal Singh Sodhi remained obscured.
114. On 09.07.2013, PW-32 SI Gianender Singh alongwith PW-27 Ct. Raj Singh, PW-28 Ct. Kishan Kumar and PW-30 ASI Prakash Veer effected recovery of two mobile phones and one Vodafone SIM No. 9582525332 from the premises of the accused Sarpal Singh Sodhi at his instance, vide seizure memo Ex.PW28/J. There is no explanation as to why the search and seizure proceedings were not initiated immediately and PW-32 SI Gianender Singh effected it after two days.
115. There is no public witness to search and seizure proceedings. PW-27 Ct. Raj Singh stated that one of the relatives of the accused Sarpal Singh Sodhi was present. However, the said relative was not made witness to seizure memo. PW-32 SI Gianender Singh stated that he requested 3-4 public persons to join the proceedings. However, they did not join the proceedings. It is relevant to note that PW-27 Ct. Raj Singh stated that no public person had gathered at the spot.
116. Therefore, search and seizure of Vodafone SIM No. 9582525332 alongwith two mobile phones at the instance of the accused Sarpal Singh Sodhi is not inspiring and free from any element of doubt.
FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 68 of 77 VODAFONE SIM NO. 9582525332 WAS PROCURED IN THE NAME OF SMT. RANI:
117. The case of the prosecution is that Vodafone SIM No. 9582525332, recovered from the accused Sarpal Singh Sodhi, was obtained in the name of Smt. Rani.
118. PW-1 Israr Babu, Nodal Officer, Vodafone produced Customer Application Form (CAF) and Call Details Record (CDR) for the period from 01.01.2013 to 10.07.2013 in respect of SIM No. 9582525332 in the name of Smt. Rani, vide Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B respectively. PW-12 Yatin Kumar, M/s. Sai Communication stated that he had not processed the said Customer Application Form (CAF) Ex.PW1/A. PW-15 Smt. Laxmi stated that no such person in the name of Smt. Rani had ever resided in her house. It is, therefore, proved that Vodafone SIM No. 9582525332 was obtained in the name of one Smt. Rani.
THE ACCUSED HARPREET SINGH OBTAINED AIRTEL SIM NO. 8826344453 BY MISUSING PHOTOGRAPH AND VOTER I-CARD AND FORGING SIGNATURE OF PW-4 S. JASVINDER SINGH:
119. In this regard, the prosecution examined PW-4 S. Jasvinder Singh who stated that the accused Harpreet Singh was employed as a 'supervisor' for 3 ½ years and he was using mobile No. 8826344453. He stated that he used to provide his Voter I-card and photograph to him. However, the accused Harpreet Singh used his photograph and Voter I-card for obtaining Airtel SIM No. 8826344453. He stated that Customer Application Form (CAF) Ex.PW31/D qua Airtel SIM No. 8826344453 does not bear his signature.
FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 69 of 77
120. PW-17 Amarjit Singh, owner of M/s. Lifeline Tele Shop stated that he had issued Airtel SIM No. 8826344453 to PW-4 S. Jasvinder Singh. He stated that PW-4 S. Jasvinder Singh had given his Voter I-card and signed Customer Application Form (CAF). In view of his testimony, it is proved that the accused Harpreet Singh had not obtained Airtel SIM No. 8826344453 by misusing Voter I-card and photograph of PW-4 S. Jasvinder Singh and forging his signature on Customer Application Form (CAF) Ex.PW31/D. CALL DETAIL RECORDS (CDR) PERTAINING TO CONVERSATION BETWEEN THE ACCUSED HARPREET SINGH AND SARPAL SINGH SODHI FROM THEIR AIRTEL SIM NOS. 9636066628 AND 8826344453:
121. The prosecution has relied upon conversation between the accused Harpreet Singh and Sarpal Singh Sodhi from Airtel No. 9636066628 and 8826344453 in order to prove that the said conversation followed the ransom calls from Vodafone SIM No. 9582525332 to mobile No. 9213832008. At this stage, it would be relevant to state that in the absence of substantive evidence that the accused Sarpal Singh Sodhi made ransom call from Vodafone SIM No. 9582525332 to PW-10 Smt. Jasvinder Kaur at 06.41 p.m., 08.41 p.m. and 11.19 p.m. on 06.07.2013 and 06.52 a.m. on 07.07.2013, the said conversation by itself is not an incriminating circumstance. ABSCONDENCE OF THE ACCUSED AMARJEET SINGH @ JEETA:
122. The prosecution contended that the accused Amarjeet Singh @ Jeeta had absconded and it is an incriminating circumstance against him.
FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 70 of 77
123. As already noted above, PW-2 Master Harneet Singh did not state anything regarding the accused Amarjeet Singh @ Jeeta in his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
Ex.PW9/A. It is further relevant to state that PW-32 SI Gianender Singh stated that he had not obtained any warrant of arrest against the accused Amarjeet Singh @ Jeeta. He stated that he visited the house of the accused Amarjeet Singh @ Jeeta several times. However, there is no record pertaining to his visits to the house of the accused Amarjeet Singh @ Jeeta. He stated that the accused Harpreet Singh pointed out the house of the accused Amarjeet Singh @ Jeeta on 07.07.2013. However, he stated that he did not prepare any pointing out memo in this regard. He stated that he made enquiry from neighbors of the accused Amarjeet Singh @ Jeeta. However, he did not record statement of any neighbor of the accused Amarjeet Singh @ Jeeta. Therefore, it cannot be said that the accused Amarjeet Singh @ Jeeta had the knowledge that he was required in connection with this case and he had absconded in order to conceal himself in such a manner to evade his arrest. THE ACCUSED AMARJEET SINGH @ JEETA REFUSED TO PARTICIPATE IN TEST IDENTIFICATION PARADE (TIP):
124. The prosecution contended that the accused Amarjeet Singh @ Jeeta refused to participate in Test Identification Parade (TIP) on 25.07.2013, vide TIP proceedings Ex.PW9/D. According to the case of the prosecution, PW-29 SI Nirmal Singh, PS Crime Branch alongwith PW-23 HC Anil and other police officials apprehended him.
FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 71 of 77
125. PW-29 SI Nirmal Singh produced him before the Jurisdictional Magistrate in Rohini Courts, Delhi on 23.07.2013, vide kalandra Ex.PW29/A. Perusal of kalandra Ex.PW29/A reflects that it does not mention that the accused Amarjeet Singh @ Jeeta was kept in muffled face after his arrest. Order dated 23.07.2013 does not mention that the accused Amarjeet Singh @ Jeeta was produced before the Jurisdictional Magistrate in muffled face. In this regard, PW-30 ASI Prakash Veer stated that PW-29 ASI Nirmal Singh produced the accused Amarjeet Singh @ Jeeta before the Court and at that time, he was not in muffled face. Moreover, refusal to participate in Test Identification Parade (TIP) is a corroborating circumstance. Such circumstance can only aid the prosecution in the presence of substantive evidence.
No conviction can be recorded on refusal of an accused to join a Test Identification Parade (TIP).
MOTIVE:
126. The case of the prosecution is that PW-10 Smt. Jasvinder Kaur had informed Smt. Simran, wife of the accused Harpreet Singh that they was intending to sell their H. No. 400, Chand Nagar, Vishnu Garden, Delhi at about Rs. 1,50,00,000/-
and in that regard, she sought help of the accused Harpreet Singh, who is a property dealer. In this regard, it would be relevant to take note of defence of the accused Harpreet Singh, in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., that PW-11 Surinder Singh approached him for sale of his house and he had given him Rs. 1,00,000/- which was to be returned in case the deal is not finalized. He stated that when he demanded his amount back, there was a quarrel between him and PW-11 Surinder Singh on 06.07.2013.
FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 72 of 77
127. The accused Harpreet Singh stated that PW-11 Surinder Singh had borrowed his Car No. DL 8CQ 2759 to bring amount from Rewari. He stated that PW-11 Surinder Singh alongwith his son went to Rewari and when he did not return, he went to Rewari Railway Station to receive payment from PW-11 Surinder Singh. He stated that when he went to lodge a complaint at PS Rajinder Nagar, he was implicated in this case.
128. Therefore, the accused Harpreet Singh admitted that he had made payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- in respect of the said house to PW-11 Surinder Singh. However, there is nothing on record that parents of PW-2 Master Harneet Singh had an amount of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- with them or the accused Harpreet Singh had knowledge of availability of such funds with them. Admittedly, the accused Harpreet Singh is a property dealer. Admittedly, PW-11 Surinder Singh wanted to sell his house and he entrusted the said work to the accused Harpreet Singh. Therefore, the fact that PW-10 Smt. Jasvinder Kaur intimated Smt. Simran the value of their house in Chand Nagar at Rs. 1,50,00,000/- cannot be a motive for commission of such offence.
CONTRADICTIONS, INHERENT IMPROBABILITIES AND INFIRMITIES IN THE PROSECUTION CASE:
129. There are serious contradictions, inherent improbabilities and infirmities in the case of the prosecution of such nature that the entire fabric of the prosecution case appears to be ridden with gaping holes. Such a serious case of kidnapping for ransom of a minor boy followed by a threat of death was investigated in such a causal manner rendering the entire case of the prosecution highly doubtful.
FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 73 of 77
130. The material contradictions, infirmities and inherent improbabilities in the prosecution case are, as under:
(a) The case of the prosecution is that on 06.07.2013 at about 06.00 p.m., PW-2 Master Harneet Singh went to the shop of PW-5 Gyanender Sharma for recharging mobile Nos. 9210585212 and 8800421997. However, a copy of register produced by PW-5 Gyanender Sharma Ex.PW5/B does not bear any date on any of the pages except Ex.PW5/B;
(b) The prosecution has not led any evidence that on 06.07.2013 at about 06.00 p.m., PW-5 Gyanender Sharma recharged mobile Nos. 9210585212 and 8800421997;
(c) The accused Harpreet Singh is father of Tarandeep, classmate of PW-2 Master Harneet Singh. There was no reason for PW-2 Master Harneet Singh to start running on being called by the accused Harpreet Singh;
(d) PW-6 Harpeeet Singh, caller stated that a car cannot enter in their street. Therefore, it is highly improbable that any person would dare to kidnap a grown-up child from a thickly populated residential area having shops therein from a narrow lane and take him to a car parked nearby;
(e) PW-10 Smt. Jasvinder Kaur stated that when PW- 2 Master Harneet Singh did not return, they made call on mobile No. 9210585212 from mobile No. 8800421997. However, the prosecution has not proved Call Details Record (CDR) of the said two mobile numbers;
(f) PW-32 Gianender Singh did not upload the information pertaining to the incident on ZIP Net and conveyed it to local police and police stations in NCR;
(g) There is no evidence that copy of FIR was sent to Jurisdictional Magistrate immediately after registration of the case;
(h) PW-10 Smt. Jasvinder Kaur stated that she received three ransom calls on 06.07.2013 and one ransom call on 07.07.2013. However, there is no recording of the said calls;
(i) It is highly improbable that parents of a minor boy, age 11 years, would not rush to the location immediately on receipt of information of his location and wait for arrival of the police team alongwith their child;
FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 74 of 77
(j) On 07.07.2013 at about 10.00 a.m., PW-10 Smt. Jasvinder Kaur received call from PW-2 Master Harneet Singh on her mobile No. 9213832008 from mobile No. 9416295289 of PW-7 Monu Sharma, Parking Attendant, Rewari Railway Station. However, Call Detail Record (CDR) Ex.PW3/B of the said number 9213832008 does not reflect that any call was received from mobile No. 9416295289. Moreover, Customer Application Form (CAF) and Call Detail Recored (CDR) of mobile No. 9416295289 were not produced;
(k) The prosecution has not explained as to how PW- 20 Inps. Pramod Gupta reached H. No. 8/20, UIT Colony, Bhiwadi, Rajasthan to apprehend the accused Sarpal Singh Sodhi only on the basis of technical surveillance of Vodafone No. 9582525332;
(l) The case of the prosecution is that PW-10 Smt. Jasvinder Kaur received call from PW-2 Master Harneet Singh at 10.00 a.m. on 07.07.2013. However, she stated that she alongwith police officials left PS Rajinder Nagar for the house of the accused Harpreet Singh at 06.40 a.m. on 07.07.2013. The prosecution has not explained as to why the police team alongwith PW-10 Smt. Jasvinder Kaur reached at the house of the accused Harpreet Singh before receipt of call from PW-2 Master Harneet Singh;
(m) There is no report pertaining to urine test or blood test of PW-2 Master Harneet Singh in order to detect the presence of sedative or intoxicating substance in his body;
(n) Mobile No. 9213832008, on which call was received by PW-10 Smt. Jasvinder Kaur, was issued on fake identity of PW-16 Naveen;
(o) PW-7 Monu Sharma, Parking Attendant, Rewari Railway Station stated that Master Harneet Singh called his father through his mobile phone and he had a conversation with his father. PW-2 Master Harneet Singh also stated to this effect. However, PW-22 ASI Rajbeer Singh stated that master Harneet Singh called her mother from his mobile phone;
(p) The prosecution has not examined Insp. Yudhvinder Singh, SHO, PS Prasad Nagar. There is no departure entry or arrival entry pertaining to departure of Insp. Yudhvinder Singh to Rewari or his arrival to Parking, Rewari Railway Station or his arrival to PS Rajinder Nagar; and FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 75 of 77
(q) There is no official record pertaining to departure and visit of PW-20 Insp. Pramod Gupta, SHO, PS DBG Road to Bhiwadi, Rajasthan and his arrival to PS Rajinder Nagar. There is no evidence as to how he reached house of the accused Sarpal Singh Sodhi.
131. The reliance of the prosecution on recovery of mobile phone alongwith Vodafone SIM No. 9582525332, used for making ransom call, and Call Detail Records (CDR) of the conversation between the accused Harpreet Singh and Sarpal Singh Sodhi, and recovery of car belonging to the accused Harpreet Singh from Parking, Rewari Railway Station, at the best, are suspicious circumstances.
132. The suspicion, however grave, it may be, it cannot take place of proof.
133. There is no legal evidence pertaining to criminal conspiracy between the accused persons and commission of offence of kidnapping for ransom by them.
134. The prosecution could not prove charges under Section 120B IPC, 364A read with Section 120B IPC, 342 read with Section 120B IPC and 328 read with Section 120B IPC against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. CONCLUSION:
135. The accused Harpreet Singh, Sarpal Singh Sodhi and Amarjeet Singh @ Jeeta are acquitted from offences under Section 120B IPC, 364A read with Section 120B IPC, 342 read with Section 120B IPC and 328 read with Section 120B IPC.
Digitally signedSANJAY by SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2023.11.01 13:00:07 +0530 Announced in the open Court SANJAY SHARMA-II on this 31st October, 2023 DJ (Commercial-11) (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 76 of 77 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. CNR No.: DLCT01-001749-2013 SC No. 28323/2016 FIR No. 143/2013
Under Section 364A/342/323/120B/34 IPC PS Rajinder Nagar 31.10.2023 Present : Mr. Amit Dabas, Ld. Addl. PP for the State (through Video Conferencing).
Mr. Prasanna, Advocate for all the accused persons (through Video Conferencing).
Mr. Diwakar Chaudhary, Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for the accused, namely, Sarpal Singh Sodhi.
All the accused persons are present (through Video Conferencing).
Vide separate judgment announced in the open Court, the accused persons, namely, Harpreet Singh, Sarpal Singh Sodhi and Amarjeet Singh @ Jeeta are acquitted from offences under Section 120B IPC, 364A read with Section 120B IPC, 342 read with Section 120B IPC and 328 read with Section 120B IPC. The accused persons are admitted to bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- each with one surety in the like amount, as required under Section 437A Cr.P.C. As requested, requisite bond be furnished within one week. File be Digitally signed consigned to record room. SANJAY by SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2023.11.01 13:00:21 +0530 Sanjay Sharma-II DJ (Commercial-11) Central, THC, Delhi 31.10.2023 FIR No. 143/2013 State vs. Harpreet Singh & Ors. Page No. 77 of 77