Delhi District Court
Judgment Dt. 3.2.15 In Case Titled State vs Dinesh And Others Page 1 Of 18 on 3 February, 2015
1 FIR NO: 244/13
IN THE COURT OF MS. HEMANI MALHOTRA, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE-05 (CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Sessions Case No. 74/14
FIR No. 244/13
P.S. Chandani Mahal
Under Section 364A/34 IPC
Unique ID No. 0240IR0150752014
State
Versus
1.Dinesh S/o Chotey Singh Yadav
R/o Behjoi Road,
Near CL Gas Godwon
PS Chandosi Distt. Sambhal, UP
2.Satbir @ Diwan S/o Shyam Lal
R/o VPO Mohalla Gard,
PS Chandosi Distt, Sambhal, UP
3.Virender @ Kallu S/o Raghuvir Singh
R/o Vaishali Nagar, PS Chandosi
Distt. Sambhal, UP.
4.Rajender S/o Kishan Lal
R/o V& PO Sisrka, PS Faiz Ganj, Bahta
Distt. Badau UP. ...........Accused
DATE OF INSTITUTION OF SESSIONS CASE: 05.04.2014
DATE OF RESERVATION OF JUDGMENT/
CONCLUSION OF FINAL ARGUMENTS : 03.02.2015
DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT : 03.02.2015
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Dinesh, Satbir, Virender and Rajender were committed to the Court of Sessions to stand trial for offence under Section 364A read with Section 34 IPC for kidnapping Rafiq and threatening him with death in Judgment dt. 3.2.15 in case titled State vs Dinesh and others Page 1 of 18 2 FIR NO: 244/13 order to compel the complainant Sherejama to pay ransom of Rs.10 lacs for release of Rafiq on 22.12.2013 at House No.2386, Gali Chandi Wali, Turkman Gate, Delhi.
FACTS OF THE CASE
2. Briefly stated, facts of prosecution case as gathered from the charge sheet are that at about 1.40 PM on 22.12.2013, ASI Sohanbir Singh received DD no.17PPT. In pursuance of the said DD, ASI Sohanbir Singh alongwith Ct. Pushpender reached house No. 1329, Pahari Imli, Matia Mahal, Delhi but did not find the complainant there. Thereafter, ASI Sohanbir was called by the SHO to the PS Chandni Mahal. When ASI Sohanbir reached the Police Station Chandni Mahal, he found the complainant Sherejama S/o Sh. Banney Beg R/o 1329, Pahari Imli, Turkman Gate, Delhi and Salauddin @ Parvej S/o Late Murajuddin R/o 1263, Gali Jamun Wali, Kala Mahal, Pataudi House, Darya Ganj, Delhi present at the P.S. ASI Sohanbir recorded the first information statement (Ex.PW2/A) of the complainant Sherejama wherein he stated that he is engaged in the business of manufacturing wooden boxes and is acquainted with Rafiq (victim) for the last 4-5 years. They were good friends and had been partners in the business of manufacturing chappals. Rafiq was residing at I-28, Mangole Puri and his in- laws were residing at Gali Jamun Wali, Kala Mahal, Daryaganj, Delhi. About 8 months ago, Rafiq got arranged a house for his sister Naseem whose husband had expired nine months ago, at Gali Chand Wali, Turkman Gate, Delhi who he used to visit frequently.
3. It is further the case of prosecution that some negotiations regarding installation of fabrication/sewing machines were going on between Raiq and one Dinesh of Chandausi, UP. He alongwith Rafiq had also met the said Judgment dt. 3.2.15 in case titled State vs Dinesh and others Page 2 of 18 3 FIR NO: 244/13 Dinesh twice. On 20.12.2013 Rafiq had met him at Bazar Chitli Kabar and had informed him that on 18.12.2013, accused Dinesh had come to Delhi and had invited Rafiq to Chanduasi for showing sewing machines to him. Rafiq had also disclosed that he would be visiting Chandausi to see sewing machines on the next day. At about 12.30 pm on 22.12.2013, he received a call from Rafiq from his mobile no.8376929200 on his mobile no. 9811776822 stating that he had been confined in a room at Chandausi by accused Dinesh and his three other accomplices and his life was in danger. Thereafter, the phone had got disconnected. He thought that Rafiq was joking but at about 1.00 pm, he again received a call from the aforementioned number of Rafiq and this time it was accused Dinesh who was calling whose voice he identified. Accused Dinesh informed him that Rafiq was in his confinement and they will release Rafiq only if he arranges Rs.10 lacs and delivers Rs. 10 lacs at Chandausi UP. Accused Dinesh also warned him against informing the police or else Rafiq would be killed and disconnected the phone. He then called at 100 number whereafter, he was called at PS Chandni Mahal and he disclosed the facts to the police.
4. Thereafter, SHO PS Chandni Mahal, SI Yash Pal Singh. SI Rohtash, HC Satish, HC Rakesh, Constable Purshpender, Ct. Jasbir, complainant Sherejama and Salauddin left for Chanduasi, UP vide DD no.19PPT. ASI Sohanbir Singh made enquiries from Gulzan, wife of Rafiq at Mangol Puri. She disclosed that on 21.12.2013 her husband/Rafiq had gone to the house of his sister Naseem at Turkman Gate, Delhi and from there he had gone to meet Dinesh at Chandausi, Muradabad, UP. ASI Sohabir Singh also confirmed this fact from Naseem, sister of Rafiq and she also confirmed the fact that Rafiq had gone to Chandausi to meet Dinesh for negotiating purchase of sewing machines. ASI Sohanvir made an endorsement on the first information statement of complainant/Sherejama Judgment dt. 3.2.15 in case titled State vs Dinesh and others Page 3 of 18 4 FIR NO: 244/13 and got the case FIR registered U/s 364A/34 IPC. After registration of the case FIR, further investigation was marked to SI Yash Pal Singh .
5. At about 5.00 PM, on 22.12.2013 SHO PS Chandni Mahal, SI Yash Pal Singh and aforementioned police officials alongwith complainant Sherejama and Salauddin @ Parvej left for Chandausi in two private vehicles. Upon the instructions of SHO, PS Chandni Mahal, complainant Sherejama made a call on the mobile phone of Rafiq and informed accused Dinesh that he had arranged money after a lot of difficulty and he was reaching with money so his friend should not be harmed. On this, accused Dinesh asked the complainant to reach Railway Station, Chandausi and conveyed to him that he will release Rafiq only after receipt of the ransom money. Sherejama remained in touch with Rafiq and Dinesh on the mobile of Rafiq during his way to Chandausi. At about 10.30pm, they reached Chandausi Railway Station where SHO briefed the entire police party and told the complainant to signal them by touching both hands over his head as and when Dinesh approaches him. Remaining police personnels and Salaudin@Parvez took their positions as per the instructions of the SHO. Complainant Sherejama informed accused Dinesh about his arrival at Railway Station. At this, accused Dinesh told the complainant Sherejama that he would be arriving at the railway station alongwith his accomplice. However, accused Dinesh did not arrive at the railway sation. Sherejama again called him on the instructions of SHO, on which accused Dinesh told Sherejama that since it was late , he would come the next day at 10.00 am and asked Sherejama to take shelter in some nearby dharamshala. Next day i.e at about 9.30 AM on 23.12.2013, the entire police party and complainant reached Railway Station, Chandausi and took positions. In the meantime, complainant kept on conversing with accused Dinesh on mobile phone. Accused Dinesh again informed the complainant that he would arrive at at 11.00 am. Complainant Judgment dt. 3.2.15 in case titled State vs Dinesh and others Page 4 of 18 5 FIR NO: 244/13 and police personnels kept on waiting for accused Dinesh. At about 12.30 pm, accused Dinesh and his accomplice came to the railway station, Chandausi and met the complainant Sherejama whereafter complainant signaled the police party accordingly. On receiving the signal, police party overpowered the accused Dinesh and his accomplice whose name was subsequently revealed as Virender @Kalu. On interrogation, it was disclosed by accused Dinesh that Rafiq had been confined in the house of accused Virender @ Kallu under the observation of his two other accomplices namely Satbir @ Diwan and Rajender. Pursuant to which, they all reached the house of accused Virender @ Kallu and at the instance of accused Dinesh, house of accused Virender @ Kallu was raided and Rafiq rescued. Thereafter, the SHO , PS Chandni Mahal along with his staff, complainant/Sherejama, Salaudin@ Parvez and the accused persons left for Delhi at about 2.00pm from Chandausi , Moradabad UP and reached PS Chandni Mahal, Delhi at about 7.00 pm.
6. After reaching PS Chandni Mahal, two mobile phones from the possession of accused Dinesh, one mobile phone from the possession of Satbir @ Diwan and one mobile phone from the possession of accused Rajender were recovered and same were seized. All the four accused persons namely Dinesh, Virender @ Kallu, Satbir @ Diwan and Rajender confessed to the commission of kidnapping of Rafiq for ransom, wherefter, they were arrested in the present case and intimation of their arrest was given to their family members. Disclosure statements of all the four accused persons were also recorded. Statement of victim Rafiq was also got recorded. Since mobile of victim Rafiq (8376929200) was used by accused Dinesh to converse with the complainant, same was also seized. SI Sohanbir collected the call detail records (CDR) of mobile phones of Sherejama, victim Rafiq and four mobile phones recovered from the accused persons. During investigation, it was Judgment dt. 3.2.15 in case titled State vs Dinesh and others Page 5 of 18 6 FIR NO: 244/13 also revealed that mobile of Sherejama/complainant was in his own name and mobile of victim Rafiq was in the name of Kazama Khatoon R/o 12A/17- B, Gali NO.5, Vijay Mohalla, Delhi . No call detail record (CDR) of the mobile no. 9720860381 recovered from accused Dinesh was found nor its CAF could be located. Mobile No. 8650537892 was found to be in the name of one Dharam Das and Mobile No. 7830719282 was found to be in the name of one Budh. The mobile phone which was recovered from the accused Satbir @ Diwan was found having dual SIMs of numbers 9759003128 and 9759918423 out of which number 98759918423 was found in the name of one Naresh Chandra and mobile no. 9759003128 was found in the name of one Arvind Kumar. The Mobile number 9720014465 recovered from accused Rajender was found to be in the name of accused Rajender himself. As per the call detail record, accused Dinesh had made a call from his mobile number 8650537892 to the mobile No. 8376929200 of victim Rafiq on 17.12.2013 at about 7.10 and he had conversed with him for 76 seconds. Thereafter victim Rafiq had spoken to accused Dinesh at about 7.28 PM for about 143 seconds. Both of them had fixed time to meet on 18.12.2013 at Turkman Gate, Delhi. On 18.12.2013, accused Dinesh had met victim Rafiq but no conversation took place between them on mobile phone on that day. Victim Rafiq got the time fixed with the accused Dinesh for 21.12.2013 to see machines at Chandausi. On 19.12.2013, accused Dinesh had conversed with victim Rafiq. On 21.12.2013 accused Dinesh made a call at 9.31 AM which shows the location of victim Rafiq at Turkman Gate and the location of mobile phone of accused Dinesh at Chandausi. At about 12.18 PM and 12.20 PM, the location of the victim was at Patpar Ganj Industrial Area and the location of the mobile phone of accused Dinesh was at Chandausi. At about 1.48 PM, the location of the mobile phone of victim was at Mohan Nagar Ghaziabad UP and at about 6.24 PM victim Rafiq had conversation with accused Dinesh at Chandausi Railway Station. Rafiq had Judgment dt. 3.2.15 in case titled State vs Dinesh and others Page 6 of 18 7 FIR NO: 244/13 spoken to complainant/Sherejama at 6.28 PM on his mobile phone and the location of the mobile phone of victim was at Chandausi .On 22.12.13, victim had conversation with the complainant and at that time the location of the mobile phone of the victim was at Chandausi. On 22.12.2013, there was no conversation between victim Rafiq and the accused persons as, as per the investigation, victim Rafiq was in the custody of the accused persons. On 22.12.2013 before 12.30 PM there were conversations between victim Rafiq and the complainant and the location of the mobile phone of victim Rafiq was at Chandausi. On 22.12.13 at 12.29 PM, the conversation between Rafiq and the complainant took place for 168 seconds and at that time victim Rafiq disclosed to the complainant that accused Dinesh and his three associates had confined him in a room at Chandausi, thereafter phone was got disconnected. At about 1.04 PM when complainant called victim Rafiq on his mobile phone, he had conversation with the accused Dinesh, whose voice the complainant had identified. Accused Dinesh had demanded ransom of Rs.10 lacs and thereafter complainant had called at number 100 and he alongwith police party had left for Chandausi and location of the phone of the complainant as per CDR was of UP West after 6.43 PM. On 23.12.2013, location of complainant and victim both as per the CDR of their respective mobile numbers was at Chandausi. On 23.12.2013, accused Dinesh had called the complainant from his mobile number 8650537892 on his mobile number 9811776822 and as per the CDR, location of both the numbers was of Chandausi Railway Station.
7. During the investigation it was also revealed that accused Dinesh from his mobile number 7830719282 had contacted co-accused Satbir@ Diwan at his number 9759003128 several times on 20.12.2013 & 21.12.2013 and similarly accused Dinesh had contacted co-accused Rajender on his mobile number 9720014465 on 19.12.2013. Accused Dinesh had also contacted Judgment dt. 3.2.15 in case titled State vs Dinesh and others Page 7 of 18 8 FIR NO: 244/13 coaccused Rajender from his mobile number 8650537892 on the mobile phone of coaccused Rajender bearing no. 9720014465 on 21/22/23.12.2013 and accused Dinesh had also contacted coaccused Satbir from his mobile no. 8650537892 on 21/22/23.12.2013. Accused Rajender was also in touch through his mobile number 9720014465 with accused Satbir on his mobile number 9759003128 on 21.12.2013, 22.12.2013 and 23.12.2013. During investigation, it was also revealed that accused Dinesh had obtained the mobile phone no.8650537892 in the name of Dharam Dass S/o Summeri Dass R/o Baniya Kheri, Chandausi and Dharam Dass had already expired. The other mobile number 7830719282 found in possession of accused Dinesh was found to be under the name of Budha Singh S/o Batto Singh R/o 18 Gatto wala, Takhurdwara Moradabad UP. The mobile phone no. 9759003128 and 9759918423 found in the possession of accused Satbir @ Diwan were found to be in the name of Arvind Kumar S/o Rishi Pal R/o Village Mohal Garh, Chandausi and Naresh Chander S/o Anand Swaroop R/o 147, Narayan Tola, Chandausi respectively. The mobile no.9720014465 recovered from accused Rajender was found to be in his own name.
8. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against the accused Dinesh, Satbir Singh @ Diwan , Virender @ Kalllu and accused Rajender for commision of offence punishable U/364A read with Section 34 IPC CHARGE
9. Charges U/s 364A/34 IPC were framed against all the accused persons on 25.04.2014 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Resultantly, prosecution was directed to lead its evidence.
EVIDENCE Judgment dt. 3.2.15 in case titled State vs Dinesh and others Page 8 of 18 9 FIR NO: 244/13
10. In support of its case and in order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, prosecution examined victim Rafique as PW1, complainant Sherejama as PW2, and Salauddin as PW3.
11. PW 1 victim Rafique deposed that on 18.12.2013 accused Dinesh, who was correctly identified by the witness in the Court, reached his house and negotiations regarding the purchase of sewing machines took place between them. He was acquainted with accused Dinesh two / two and a half years prior to the incident as earlier also they had had negotiations regarding purchase of machines. PW1 further testified that he told the accused Dinesh that in order to see the machines, he would visit Chandausi, UP on 21.12.2013. Hence, as decided he reached Chandausi on 21.12.2013 at about 8.00/9.00pm. Accused Dinesh met him at the railway station Chandausi and had taken him to a house which was about 2-1/2 km away from the Railway Station Chandausi on his motorcycle. As there was no power in the house, he felt uncomfortable. Three more persons also reached at the said house.
12. PW1 /victim Rafiq further testified that since he had been brought to a house which was dilapidated and without power, he felt that he was in danger. He thus called his friend/complainant/Sherejama/PW2. He then had negotiations with the accused Dinesh regarding the purchase of machines worth about Rs.ten lacs. He asked the accused Dinesh to show the machines to him which accused Dinesh promised to show him the next day. Thereafter the accused persons arranged a cot (charpaai) for him in the room and he was left alone in the said room. The accused went to another room. After some time he woke up accused Dinesh and asked him to arrange a cigarette for him. When he enquired accused Dinesh regarding Judgment dt. 3.2.15 in case titled State vs Dinesh and others Page 9 of 18 10 FIR NO: 244/13 the work, he was asked to arrange Rs.10 lacs.
13. PW 1 further deposed that he grew suspicious of the intentions of the accused Dinesh and again made call to his friend Sherjama/PW2 informing him of the circumstances and the apprehension of his life being in danger. Thereafter he slept. On next day also he stayed in the same house. On the third day, the police officials reached the house where he was kept and he was taken to Delhi. During the entire episode, he had made calls from his mobile no. 8376929200 to the complainant Sherjama/PW2 on his mobile phone 9811786822. After reaching Delhi, police had taken him to PS Chandni Mahal and had made enquiries from him, whereafter he was relieved by the police. Police did not record his statement.
14. As PW 1 had resiled from his first information statement (Ex.PW1/A) and claimed that his statement was never recorded by the police, permission was sought by the learned APP for the State to cross examine PW-1 which was allowed.
15. In his cross examination, conducted by learned Addl. PP for the State, PW 1 stated that he was well acquainted with the accused Dinesh r/o Chandausi , Muradabad UP as accused Dinesh was engaged in the business of readymade shirts. He further testified that he had told the police that accused Dinesh had agreed to install 10 -12 stitching machine at Delhi but he did not have the arrangement for such a huge amount . Hence he had told accused Dinesh that he would arrange the money from his sister who had sold her land at Etah UP for a sum of Rs.30-35 lacs and that he and accused Dinesh would work together.
16. In his cross examination, PW1 also deposed that he had also stated to the Judgment dt. 3.2.15 in case titled State vs Dinesh and others Page 10 of 18 11 FIR NO: 244/13 police that he had told Dinesh not to worry about the money as his sister would lend money for this purpose and he would arrange the labour for stitching. PW1 however, admitted that he had stated to the police that accused Dinesh was introduced to his friend Sherejama @ Billu/complainant/PW2 who had been his partner in the business of manufacturing chappals and that Sherejama was apprised about his business plan.
17. He further admitted to have told the police that accused Dinesh had asked him to come to Chandausi Muradabad and to look for machines in Chandausi as they were available at a cheaper rate. On 18.12.2013, accused Dinesh had came to Turkman Gate, Delhi and had met him. He had advised him to come to Chandausi to purchase machines as it was the right time to manufacture readymade garments and hence, he had told accused Dinesh that he would come to Chandausi on 21.12.2013.
18. PW1 further admitted that he had stated to the police that he had informed his wife, sister and friend Sherjama @ Babloo @ Billoo/PW2 regarding him visiting Chandausi on 21.12.2013. However, he stated that he had reached Chandausi Bus Stand at about 6-7 pm on 21.12.2013 where he had met accused Dinesh alongwith his three friends namely accused Virender@ Kalu, Satbir @ Diwan and Rajender. Accused Dinesh had told him that his friends namely Virender@ Kalu, Satbir @ Diwan and Rajender would help them in purchasing machines.
19. PW1 further admitted to have stated to the police that from Chanduasi Bus Stand , all the aforementioned four persons had taken him to the house of accused Virender @ Kalu where all of them had spent the night.
Judgment dt. 3.2.15 in case titled State vs Dinesh and others Page 11 of 18 12 FIR NO: 244/1320. PW1/victim Rafiq, however, categorically denied stating to the police that accused Dinesh had threatened him with dire consequences and had demanded a ransom of Rs.10 lacs to release him. He also denied the suggestion that he had informed the police that the accused persons on being informed that he did not have the arrangement of Rs.ten lacs was abused, threatened with dire consequences and confined in the room. He completely refuted the suggestion that he had made a call to his friend Sherejama/complainant/PW2 on his mobile phone and had told him about his confinement and demand of Rs. Ten lacs by the accused persons. He also blatantly refused having told the police that he had again made a call to Sherejama /PW2 and during his conversation with Sherejama/PW2, accused Dinesh had snatched the phone and had demanded Rs.ten lacs from Sherejama/PW2 and had told him that he would release him only if Rs. Ten lacs are delivered to him at Chandausi. He also denied the suggestion that accused Dinesh had told PW-2 that if he would inform the police, he (Rafiq) would be killed and that accused Dinesh was in constant touch with Sherejama/PW2 from his mobile phone and that Sherejama/PW2 had told accused Dinesh that he would reach Chandausi Railway Station with the ransom amount in order to get him (Rafiq) released. He further negated the suggestion that he had also stated to the police that the accused Dinesh and his accomplices did not reach the railway station Chandausi at the scheduled time, after which Sherejama/PW2 had called accused Dinesh and accused Dinesh had asked him to take shelter at some Dharamshala and that he would meet PW2 the next day. PW 1/Rafiq also denied the suggestion that he had told the police that all this while, accused Dinesh had kept his mobile phone on the speaker mode so that he (Rafiq) could hear the conversation between accused Dinesh and the complainant/Sherejama/PW2. He further denied having stated to the police that on the next day, accused Dinesh along with his accomplices Judgment dt. 3.2.15 in case titled State vs Dinesh and others Page 12 of 18 13 FIR NO: 244/13 Virender @ Kallu had gone to the railway station to receive the ransom amount from Sherejama/PW 2 whereas accused Satbir @ Diwan and accused Rajender were left to keep a watch over him.
21. He also very categorically denied the suggestion that he had been illegally confined by the accused persons at Chandausi and a demand of Rs.ten lacs was made by them to release him. He completely refuted the suggestion that he had made a call to his friend Sherejama/PW2 and had informed him about his illegal confinement by the accused persons and the demand of ransom of Rs. Ten lacs and that PW 2/Sherejama should arrange Rs. Ten lacs and reach Chandausi railway station, in pursuant to which, the accused Dinesh and Virender @ Kallu had reached Chandausi railway station to receive the ransom amount where they were apprehended by the Delhi police and the Delhi police had got him released from their custody.
22. But PW-1/victim Rafiq admitted that the team of Delhi police had come to the house where he was residing in Chandausi with accused Dinesh and Virender @ Kallu and had thereafter, taken him to Delhi. He also admitted to have signed his recovery memo (Ex.PW1/B), arrest memos of the accused persons (Ex.PW 1/C to Ex. PW 1/F) but he denied police team having recovered the mobile phones of the accused persons from them in his presence.
23. In his cross examination by the learned counsel for the accused persons, he denied having knowledge of the contents of Ex. PW 1/B to Ex. PW 1/F and stated that his signatures were obtained on blank documents.
24. PW2 Sh. Sherejama, complainant and friend of the victim of Rafiq, too failed Judgment dt. 3.2.15 in case titled State vs Dinesh and others Page 13 of 18 14 FIR NO: 244/13 to support the case of the prosecution. In his deposition, PW2 testified that victim Rafiq was his friend and he had known him for the last 4-5 years. Earlier they were partners in the business of manufacturing chappals. Rafiq had arranged a house for his sister Naseem as his brother in law had expired and thus used to live with his sister at her residence at Gali Chandi Wali, Turkman Gate Delhi. He had met accused Dinesh once when Rafiq was negotiating purchase of sewing machines from accused Dinesh of Chandausi, Uttar Pradesh.
25. PW2/complainant Sherejama further testified that on 20.12.2013, Rafiq had met him in the market and had told him that accused Dinesh had come to Delhi on 18.12.2013 and now he would be visiting Chandausi at the behest of accused Dinesh for the purchase of sewing machines. At about 12.30 PM on 22.12.2013, he had received a call from the mobile of Rafiq on his mobile phone . During that call,Rafiq had informed him that he was confined by some persons at Chandausi, after which, his mobile got disconnected. He further testified that at about 1.00 pm, he again received a call from the mobile of Rafiq but this time, the caller was not Rafiq but some one else ,who informed him that Rafiq had been kidnapped by them. He was thus called to Chandausi, UP with a ransom amount of Rs.10 lacs for the release of Rafiq. The caller had also threatened him not to disclose this fact to police or else , Rafiq would be killed, whereafer the caller disconnected the phone. He immediately made a call at no.100 to the police whereafter police called him to PS Chandni Mahal and obtained his signature on a paper after which he was relieved from the PS Chandni Mahal. The police had also obtained his signatures on some blank papers. Subequently, he came to know that police had registered an FIR regarding the kidnapping of Rafiq.
Judgment dt. 3.2.15 in case titled State vs Dinesh and others Page 14 of 18 15 FIR NO: 244/1326. Since PW2/complainant/Sherejama also failed to support the case of the prosecution, he was cross examined by Learned Addl. PP for the State with the permission of the Court. However, despite his lengthy cross examination conducted by Learned Addl. PP for the State, nothing favourable could be extracted from PW2 in favour of the prosecution.
27. In his cross examination by Learned Addl. PP for the State, PW2/complainant/Sherejama denied the contents of his first information statement (Ex.PW2/A) to the extent that Rafiq had informed him that he was confined in a house by Dinesh and his three associates and his life was in danger and that accused Dinesh was identified by him and he had demanded ransom of Rs.10 lacs to release his friend Rafiq (PW1). He also denied having visited the police station Chandni Mahal along with Salauddin/PW3 (brother in law of Rafiq) on 22/12/2013 or visiting Chandausi along with the police and Salauddin in order to get the victim Rafiq/PW1 released from the clutches of the accused persons. He also denied the entire sequence of events which took place at Chandausi UP. So far as the documents Ex.PW1/C to Ex.PW1/F were concerned, he admitted his signatures thereupon but also stated that the police had obtained his signatures on blank documents and he was not aware of the contents of Ex.PW1/C to Ex.PW1/F. He also denied accused Dinesh and Virender@ Kallu having been arrested in his presence and the fact that victim Rafiq was rescued from the custody of accused Satbir@Diwan and Rajender in his presence. He also refuted the suggestion that he had been won over by the accused persons.
28. PW3 Salauddin who is the brother in-law of victim Rafiq testified that on 22.12.2013, he had received a call from SHO PS Chandni Mahal, who informed him that his brother-in-law (Behnoi) Rafiq had been abducted by Judgment dt. 3.2.15 in case titled State vs Dinesh and others Page 15 of 18 16 FIR NO: 244/13 someone. On this, he went to PS Chandni Mahal, where Sherejama/complainant/PW2 was already present who told him that he had received a ransom call for Rs. 10 lac from the abductor of Rafiq namely Dinesh. The SHO, PS Chandni Mahal then prepared a raiding party comprising of police officials, Sherejama/PW2 and him whereafter, they went to some place in District Moradabad by vehicles. Sherejama/PW2 was told by the abductor to come at the Railway Station of the said place. They reached the railway station at about 11.00 PM and took positions. They waited for about one and a half hour, but none of the abductors came there. Thereafter, a call from the abductor was received by Sherejama/PW2 on his phone that the abductors would come the next morning. Hence, they stayed in a Dharamshala that night. Next morning, they again went to the railway station and took positions. SHO, PS Chandni Mahal directed Sherejama/PW2 to raise his hand over his head as a signal to the police party as and when the abductors approached Sherejama/PW2.
29. PW3 further testified that at about 12.00 noon, two persons, one of whom was accused Dinesh approached Sherejama/PW2 and accordingly Sherejama signaled the police party. Accused Dinesh and his companion were interrogated by the SHO, pursuant to which they disclosed that Rafiq had been confined by them in a room situated in a field. Both the accused persons led them to the said room and got released Rafiq. Two more accomplices of Dinesh were present in the said room. All the accused were arrested and their mobile phones were also taken into possession by the police. Some documents i.e Ex.PW 1/B to Ex. PW1/F and Ex.PW 2/B to Ex. PW2/D were also prepared by the police officials at the spot. Thereafter, they all went to the local police station, where some official work was done by SHO and later on, they all returned to Delhi.
Judgment dt. 3.2.15 in case titled State vs Dinesh and others Page 16 of 18 17 FIR NO: 244/1330. In his cross examination by the learned counsel for the accused persons, PW 3/Salauddin/brother in law of victim Rafiq/PW1 stated to have come to know of the demand of ransom amount by accused persons and to deliver the ransom amount at Railway Station Chandausi from PW2/ Sherejama. Although he admitted to have visited Railway Station Chandausi with the police party and PW 2/Sherejama, he testified that he remained outside the railway station. Even on the next day, when they had visited the Railway Station, Chandausi, it was Sherejama/PW 2 who was receiving phone calls and he was unable to hear the conversation between Sherejama/PW2 and the caller. In his further cross examination, he admitted to have not seen accused Dinesh at the Railway Station Chandausi. He categorically testified that from the railway station Chandausi, they had proceeded to some police post where they had stayed for about one and a half hours and from there itself they had proceeded to Delhi and had reached PS Chandni Mahal at about 7.00 P.M where he was made to sign some documents, the contents of which were not known to him. He also testified that he had signed the said documents on the instructions of the IO.
31. It is also seen that all the material witnesses i.e PW 1 Rafiq (victim) ,PW 2/complainant/Sherejama and PW 3 Salauddin failed to support the case of the prosecution and resiled from their earlier statements. Accordingly, statements of the accused were dispensed with.
32. The evidence of the material witnesses i.e PW 1 Rafiq (Victim), PW 2/Complainant Sherejama and PW 3 Salauddin/brother in law of victim Rafiq shows that they failed to support the case of prosecution. The careful scrutiny of their testimonies reveal that they did not assign any role to any accused regarding alleged offence of kidnapping for ransom. Rafiq who was the victim even denied giving any statement to the police and testified that Judgment dt. 3.2.15 in case titled State vs Dinesh and others Page 17 of 18 18 FIR NO: 244/13 no kidnapping leave alone kidnapping for ransom had taken place. PW2/complainant Sherejama although admitted to have gone to Chandausi UP, he denied having received any call for ransom or visiting Chandausi, UP to pay ransom to get PW1 relieved from the clutches of the accused persons. So far as PW 3 was concerned,he also admitted to have visited Chandausi, UP with PW 2 and the police but stated his source of information to be Sherejama. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that it will not be safe to convict the accused persons u/s 364A read with Section 34 IPC.
33. Accordingly in the light of the testimonies of PW1, PW 2 and PW3 who failed to support the case of the prosecution, benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused persons. Hence, I have no hesitation to acquit the accused persons namely Dinesh, Satbir @ Diwan, Virender@ Kallu and Rajender of the charges u/s 364A/34 IPC giving them benefit of doubt. Accordingly accused persons stand acquitted.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Signed and Announced in open (Hemani Malhotra)
Court on Addl. Sessions Judge-05
This 3rd day of February,2015 (Central) Tis Hazari Courts
Delhi
Judgment dt. 3.2.15 in case titled State vs Dinesh and others Page 18 of 18