Delhi District Court
State vs Rahul Kumar Singh on 30 May, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SHRI MANOJ KUMAR : ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE1 (SOUTH), NEW DELHI
Sessions Case No. 36/14 (Original No. 34/10)
Unique ID No.: 02403R0086032010
FIR No. 423/09
Police Station: Hauz Khas
In the matter of:
State
VERSUS
Rahul Kumar Singh,
S/o Sh. Bhola Singh,
R/o Village Yadav Pur,
Bihasara, P.S. Jigna,
District Mirzapur,
Uttar Pradesh. ............ Accused
Date of Institution : 13.4.2010
Date of Reserving judgment : 29.5.2015
Date of pronouncement : 30.5.2015
For State : Mr. WasiurRahman,
Additional Public Prosecutor.
For Defence : Mr. Nitin Rai Sharma, Advocate.
JUDGMENT :
Rahul Kumar Singh, age 20 years, has been committed for Sessions Case No. 36/14 Page No. 1 of 52 trial by Sh. Ravinder Singh, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi: and so, he stands charged with the commission of offence punishable under section 364A of the Indian Penal Code, namely, that he, on 10.12.2009 at house no. 35, Shahpur Jat, New Delhi abducted Pradeep, son of Jagdish Pawar (PW3) for demanding ransom, and thereafter demanded ransom by threatening to kill the victim, the said Pradeep.
2. The circumstances leading upto the committal of the case, and subsequently the charge against the accused, as per the record of the case, are that on 10.12.2009 at about 8.30 am, Pradeep, son of Jagdish Pawar, age 21 years, who was stated to be mentally weak, went to the shop, where he was working as a mechanic, and did not return by the evening, so, Jagdish Pawar, the father of Pradeep, went to police station Hauz Khas and reported the matter to the police; that the police at police station Hauz Khas recorded the information as daily diary (DD) entry no. 21B and Assistant SubInspector (ASI) Baldev Raj was deputed to make inquiry in the matter, who having visited the spot made inquiry from the neighbours as well as from the place where Pradeep used to work; that missing persons squad of the Delhi Police was informed about the missing of Pradeep; that on 14.12.2009, in the afternoon, one Munna Saifi (PW9), who was running his tea shop in front of the house of Jagdish Pawar, sent his mobile phone to Jagdish Pawar through one boy and that boy requested him to attend the call as the same was related to him; that Jagdish Pawar attended the call on Sessions Case No. 36/14 Page No. 2 of 52 the mobile phone of Munna Saifi and the caller told him on phone that Pradeep was with him, and demanded Rs.15,00,000/ in denomination of Rs.1,000/ currency notes, otherwise he would sell the kidney of Pradeep in the market; that on 14.12.2009, after receiving the ransom call, Jagdish Pawar went to the police station and got recorded his statement (Ex. PW3/A), and narrated all the facts to the police; that on the basis of the statement of Jagdish Pawar, first information report (FIR) under section 365 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at police station Hauz Khas; that on 16.12.2009, the investigation of the case was entrusted to Inspector Raj Kumar (PW12), who, on 17.12.2009, in view of the fact that the mobile phone of Jagdish Pawar did not have recording facility, got removed SIM card from his mobile phone and placed the same in the mobile phone of Constable Luv Kumar; that Inspector Raj Kumar also placed a memory card (Ex. P2) of make Kingston in the mobile phone of Constable Luv Kumar and handed over the same to Jagdish Pawar so that the conversation between him and the ransom caller would be recorded; that during the period 2.30 pm and 6.50 pm, Jagdish Pawar talked to the abductor, who demanded Rs. 15,00,000/ from him and directed him to go to Allahabad by train, and from there to Chunar by a passenger train; that a police party was constituted which reached Allahabad and from there, as directed by the ransom caller, took train to Chunar, and alighted at Mirzapur railway station; that on 19.12.2009, the caller Sessions Case No. 36/14 Page No. 3 of 52 asked Jagdish Pawar to come at the parking of Mirzapur railway station; that Jagdish Pawar alongwith Head Constable (HC) Islamuddin (PW11) reached the parking of Mirzapur railway station, but the caller by making a call to Jagdish Pawar asked him to come at Bai Ka Bagh, Allahabad alongwith the ransom money; that Inspector Raj Kumar handed over thirty wads of papers of the size of Rs. 500/ currency notes (Ex. P1) to Jagdish Pawar, and he and HC Islamuddin were briefed; that as per the instructions of Inspector Raj Kumar, Jagdish Pawar alongwith HC Islamuddin, on a cycle rickshaw, reached the bus stand of the Bai Ka Bagh and waited for the ransom caller, whereas the other police persons accompanying them took their respective positions near them; that on 19.12.2009, at the Bai Ka Bagh, the accused alongwith Pradeep came on a motorcycle (Ex. P7) bearing registration no. UP63K7615 and took bag from Jagdish Pawar; that the accused was overpowered and apprehended on the spot and Pradeep was recovered and he was handed over to his father. It is further stated in the police report that during the investigation, at the instance of the accused, the clothes {trousers and shirt (Ex. P4)} of Pradeep were recovered from the house of the accused at his native place Yadav Pur, and the mobile phone used by the accused was recovered from the Bai Ka Bagh; that during the investigation the contents of the memory card was transferred in two compact disks (CDs); that during the investigation the voice samples of the accused Sessions Case No. 36/14 Page No. 4 of 52 were taken at the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Rohini, Delhi, and the contents of CD (Ex. P6) were got analyzed, and after analysis it was found that the voice in the memory card, subsequently transferred to the CDs, matched with the sample voice of accused Rahul Kumar Singh. After investigation, it was concluded that accused Rahul Kumar Singh kidnapped/abducted Pradeep for ransom and kept him in confinement, and thus committed offence punishable under section 364A of the Indian Penal Code, and subsequently, on 17.3.2010, a police report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) was put up before the Metropolitan Magistrate with a view to put the accused on trial.
3. In the light of the police report and the documents filed alongwith the same, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, having taken cognizance of the offence complied with the provisions of section 207 of Cr.P.C. and committed the case to the Court of Session.
4. On 15.5.2010, after hearing the Additional Public Prosecutor and counsel for the accused, the charge was framed against the accused for his having committed offence punishable under sections 364A (abduction for ransom) of the Indian Penal Code. The charge was read over and explained to the accused to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
5. Despite asserting in the police report that Pradeep was a person of unsound mind, the State, before, or at the time of the Sessions Case No. 36/14 Page No. 5 of 52 framing of the charge, or subsequently did not produce any material to show that Pradeep was a person of unsound mind, so the accused was not charged with the commission of the offence of kidnapping.
6. On 04.9.2014, the charge framed against the accused was altered and the name of the victim was corrected.
7. In support of its case the prosecution got examined PW1 Sunil Kumar, Laboratory Assistant, Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL), PW2 ASI Mainuddin, PW3 Jagdish Pawar, PW4 SubInspector (SI) Baldev Raj, PW5 HC Mohar Singh, PW6 Constable Mukesh, PW7 Manish Shihani, PW8 Sandeep Sharma, PW9 Munna Saifi, PW10 SI Narender Kumar, PW11 ASI Islamuddin, and PW12 Inspector Raj Kumar. During the examination of the prosecution witnesses documents Ex. PW1/A, Ex. PW2/A, Ex. PW2/B, Ex. PW3/A, Ex. PW4/A, Ex. PW5/A, Ex. PW10/A to Ex. PW10/J, Ex. PW11/A, Ex. PW11/B, Ex. PW11/C, Ex. PW12/A, Ex. PW12/B, Ex. PW12/C, Ex. PW12/D; and material objects Ex. P1 (wads of papers), Ex. P2 (memory card), Ex. P3 (mobile phone:
IMEI no. 351895013189228, stated to had been used by Jagdish Pawar in talking with the ransom caller), Ex. P4 (the trousers and the shirt), Ex. P5 (mobile phone: IMEI no. 358010032044130, stated to had been used by the accused in talking with the PW3 Jagdish Pawar), Ex. P6 (CD, sent to the FSL for analysis), Ex. P7 (motorcycle), Ex. P8 (audio cassette, containing sample voice of the accused) and Ex. P9 Sessions Case No. 36/14 Page No. 6 of 52 (another audio cassette, containing sample voice of the accused) were also tendered in evidence.
8. On 01.4.2015, prosecution evidence was closed and the matter was posted for examination of the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C. and recording of his statement.
9. Before the commencement of the examination of the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C., in the light of the order dated 24.4.2015, passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Crl.M.C. 1646/2015 entitled Rahul Kumar Singh v. The State (NCT of Delhi), summons were issued against PW3 Jagdish Pawar for recalling him for his cross examination by the accused, but on the summons it was reported that he had already passed away on 07.11.2014.
10. On 15.5.2015, the accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. and his statement was recorded. During his examination under section 313 of Cr.P.C. accused Rahul Kumar Singh denied the correctness of the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The accused did not express his desire to lead evidence in his defence.
11. No evidence has been led by the accused in his defence.
12. I have heard Mr. WasiurRahman, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. Nitin Rai Sharma, Advocate for the accused and have gone through the record of the case carefully.
Sessions Case No. 36/14 Page No. 7 of 5213. Having drawn my attention on the testimonies of PW1 Sunil Kumar, PW2 ASI Mainuddin, PW3 Jagdish Pawar, PW4 SI Baldev Raj, PW5 HC Mohar Singh, PW6 Constable Mukesh, PW7 Manish Shihani, PW8 Sandeep Sharma, PW9 Munna Saifi, PW10 SI Narender Kumar, PW11 ASI Islamuddin and PW12 Inspector Raj Kumar; the documents Ex. PW1/A, Ex. PW2/A, Ex. PW2/B, Ex. PW3/A, Ex. PW4/A, Ex. PW5/A, Ex. PW10/A to Ex. PW10/J, Ex. PW11/A, Ex. PW11/B, Ex. PW11/C, Ex. PW12/A, Ex. PW12/B, Ex. PW12/C, Ex. PW12/D; and the material objects Ex. P1, Ex. P2, Ex. P3, Ex. P4, Ex. P5, Ex. P6, Ex. P7, Ex. P8 and Ex. P9 it is submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that from the evidence led by the prosecution it has been proved that on 10.12.2009, the accused pretending to be one Saksham Singh met PW9 Munna Saifi and made inquiry about PW3 Jagdish Pawar and his son Pradeep. It is further submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that from the evidence led by the prosecution it has also been proved that during his meeting with PW9 Munna Saifi the accused took his mobile phone number and also inquired about the mobile number of Jagdiah Pawar. It is further submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that from the evidence led by the prosecution it has also been proved that on 10.12.2009, Pradeep, the son of PW3 Jagdish Pawar had gone missing and subsequently, on 14.12.2009 and thereafter, PW3 Jagdish Pawar received ransom calls from the mobile Sessions Case No. 36/14 Page No. 8 of 52 phone that was recovered at the instance of the accused. It is further submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that from the evidence led by the prosecution it has also been proved that on 19.12.2009, at the Bai Ka Bagh, Allahabad, the accused alongwith Pradeep, on motorcycle Ex. P7 came to collect the ransom money, and he was nabbed and out of his possession Pradeep was recovered. It is further submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that from the evidence led by the prosecution it has also been proved that subsequently from the house of the accused at his village Yadav Pur the clothes (Ex. P4) of Pradeep were recovered which establish that Pradeep was kept in confinement. It is further submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that from the FSL report Ex. PW12/D it has also been proved that it was accused Rahul Kumar Singh, who having abducted the son of Jagdissh Pawar was making ransom calls to his father and demanding Rs. 15,00,000/ from him after putting him in fear of harm to his son, therefore, the accused be convicted for commission of offence punishable under section 364A of the Indian Penal Code and be punished.
14. Percontra, having drawn my attention on the testimonies of PW1 Sunil Kumar, PW2 ASI Mainuddin, PW3 Jagdish Pawar, PW4 SI Baldev Raj, PW7 Manish Shihani, PW8 Sandeep Sharma, PW9 Munna Saifi, PW10 SI Narender Kumar, PW11 ASI Islamuddin and PW12 Inspector Raj Kumar; the documents Ex. PW1/A, Ex.
Sessions Case No. 36/14 Page No. 9 of 52PW2/A, Ex. PW2/B, Ex. PW3/A, Ex. PW4/A, Ex. PW5/A, Ex. PW10/A to Ex. PW10/J, Ex. PW11/A, Ex. PW11/B, Ex. PW11/C, Ex. PW12/A, Ex. PW12/B, Ex. PW12/C, Ex. PW12/D; the material objects Ex. P1, Ex. P2, Ex. P3, Ex. P4, Ex. P5, Ex. P6, Ex. P7, Ex. P8 and Ex. P9; and the law laid down in Liyakat Hussain v. State, 2008 [4] JCC 2614 it is submitted by counsel for the accused that the accused has been falsely implicated in this case and he neither abducted Pradeep nor demanded any ransom money from his father. It is further submitted by counsel for the accused that neither Jagdish Pawar nor any police official ever visited Allahabad and the story advanced by the prosecution that Pradeep was abducted and he was found in possession of the accused is concocted. It is further submitted by counsel for the accused that it has not been proved that it was the accused who made ransom calls. It is further submitted by counsel for the accused that CD, Ex. P6 and the audio cassettes, Ex. P8 and Ex. P9 were never played in the court and before the witnesses and therefore, it has not been proved that the voice in the memory card Ex. P2 was that of the accused. It is further submitted by counsel for the accused that due process was not adopted and precautions were not taken in transferring the voice, if any, from the memory card to the CDs and thus, the evidence based on them are not reliable. It is also submitted by counsel for the accused that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the accused, therefore, the accused is entitled Sessions Case No. 36/14 Page No. 10 of 52 to be acquitted.
15. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the the parties.
16. Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code, which defines offence 'Kidnapping for ransom, etc.' and prescribes punishment for such offence, reads as follows:
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 intergovernmental organisation or any other person] to do 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.
17. Further sections 361 and 362, which define 'Kidnapping from lawful guardianship' and 'Abduction' respectively, read as follows:
361. Kidnapping from lawful guardianship.--Whoever takes or entices any minor under sixteen years of age if a male, or under eighteen years of age if a female, or any person of unsound mind, out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor or person of unsound mind, without the consent of such guardian, is said to kidnap such minor or person from lawful guardianship.
Explanation.--The words "lawful guardian" in this section include any person lawfully entrusted with the care or custody of such minor or other person.
362. Abduction.--Whoever by force compels, or by any deceitful means induces, any person to go from any place, is said to abduct that person.
18. Before discussing the points which fall for determination, the relevant parts of the testimonies of the witnesses examined by the prosecution may be noticed.
19. To bring home the guilt of the accused the prosecution Sessions Case No. 36/14 Page No. 11 of 52 has examined twelve witnesses. PW1 Sunil Kumar during his examinationinchief deposed that in the year 2010, he was posted as Scientific Associate, FSL, Rohini, Delhi, and that on 22.3.2010, as per the instructions of the court, in presence of witnesses Manish Sahni and Sandeep Sharma, he recorded the sample voice of accused Rahul Kumar in two audio cassettes. PW1 Sunil Kumar further deposed that he handed over the said two cassettes to the investigating officer (IO), who marked the same as MKVI and SVII and sealed the same with seal mark RKS and took into possession the same by memo Ex. PW1/A. PW1 Sunil Kumar was not crossexamined by counsel for the accused.
20. PW2 ASI Mainuddin during his examinationinchief deposed that on 14.12.2009, being posted as Duty Officer at police station Hauz Khas, on receipt of rukka through ASI Baldev Singh, he recorded FIR, the copy of which is Ex. PW2/A. During his examination PW2 ASI Mainuddin further deposed that he put endorsement Ex. PW2/B on the rukka and the investigation was assigned to ASI Baldev Singh. PW2 ASI Mainuddin was not cross examined by counsel for the accused.
21. PW3 Jagdish Pawar during his examinationinchief deposed that he was serving as chowkidaar in the DDA, and on 10.12.2009 at about 8.30 am, his son Pradeep, who was mentally weak, went to the shop, where he was working as a mechanic; and did not Sessions Case No. 36/14 Page No. 12 of 52 return home by the evening, so, he went to police station Hauz Khas and reported the matter to the police on 10.12.2009. PW3 Jagdish Pawar further deposed that he and his family had made search for his missing son Pradeep, aged about 22 years here and there for 1 (one)2 (two) days before reporting the matter to the police. PW3 Jagdish Pawar further deposed that the police had visited his house after about two days and made inquiry in his neighbourhood. PW3 Jagdish Pawar further deposed that on 14.12.2009 at about 4.30 pm, one Munna Saifi, who was running tea shop in front of his house, sent his mobile phone to him at his house through one boy and that boy requested him to attend the call as the same was related to him. PW3 Jagdish Pawar further deposed that he attended the call, and the caller told him on phone that there was no need to search Pradeep here and there as he was with him. PW3 Jagdish Pawar further deposed that the caller demanded fifteen lakh rupees in denomination of one thousand rupees each to release his son otherwise he would sell his kidney in the market. PW3 Jagdish Pawar further deposed that he requested that he was not able to arrange such a huge ransom amount. PW3 Jagdish Pawar further deposed that he went to the police station and produced the mobile phone of Munna Saifi to the police, and the police checked the phone and told him that it was a case of kidnapping and was not a missing matter. PW3 Jagdish Pawar further deposed that on 16.12.2009, he again received a call of the aforesaid caller on the Sessions Case No. 36/14 Page No. 13 of 52 aforesaid phone as the same was with him. PW3 Jagdish Pawar further deposed that on 16.12.2009, he attended the call at about 5.45 pm and the caller called him alongwith fifteen lakh rupees to Allahabad, and said that further way would be told to him in future. PW3 Jagdish Pawar further deposed that he again reached police station alongwith the aforesaid phone and told the said facts to the police, and the police checked the phone. PW3 Jagdish Pawar further deposed that thereafter he returned to his house alongwith the phone. PW3 Jagdish Pawar further deposed that on 17.12.2009, he again received a call of the caller on the same phone in the evening and the caller demanded one phone number from him to make contact with him through phone, and he provided phone number 9818449120 to the caller immediately. PW3 Jagdish Pawar further deposed that on the same day at about 8.00 pm, he alongwith 67 police officials of police station Hauz Khas proceeded to Allahabad by three private vehicles, and reached Allahabad next day at about 1.002.00 pm. PW3 Jagdish Pawar further deposed that at about 2.003.00 pm he received phone call of the caller at his aforesaid number and he directed him to hand over the sum of fifteen lakh rupees and that he would release his son Pradeep to him. PW3 Jagdish Pawar further deposed that he remained in wait of the caller at Allahabad railway station, but he did not come there to take money and to release his son. PW3 Jagdish Pawar further deposed that thereafter he alongwith police officials went to a hotel in Allahabad.
Sessions Case No. 36/14 Page No. 14 of 52PW3 Jagdish Pawar further deposed that he again received one mobile call of the caller on his aforesaid mobile and the caller told him that one train would depart to Chinar (sic: Chunar) from Allahabad railway station at about 5.30 pm, and he had to follow his instructions, otherwise he would kill his son Pradeep. PW3 Jagdish Pawar further deposed that as per the instructions of the caller, he alongwith others boarded the train to go to Chinar, and when the train was about to cross the fourth or fifth station, he received a phone call of the caller and he instructed to throw the cash from the train, but he did not do so. PW3 Jagdish Pawar further deposed that he requested the caller that he would hand over the cash after getting his son. PW3 Jagdish Pawar further deposed that he again received a phone call of the caller and he instructed him to get down at Mirzapur railway station from that train, where he would release his son Pradeep on receiving ransom amount. PW3 Jagdish Pawar further deposed that he alongwith the police officials got down at Mirzapur railway station, and the police officials took their place here and there outside the railway junction. PW3 Jagdish Pawar further deposed that he alongwith police official Islamuddin (PW11) took position on a bench. PW3 Jagdish Pawar further deposed that he again received mobile call of the caller, who told him that he was alongwith police officials and he would not come to meet him. PW3 Jagdish Pawar further deposed that thereafter, he alongwith the police officials left Mirzapur railway station to go to Sessions Case No. 36/14 Page No. 15 of 52 Allahabad. PW3 Jagdish Pawar further deposed that when he was in the city of Mirzapur, he again received the call of the caller on his mobile phone and he told him that he should return at Mirzapur railway station near car parking as he was ready to release his son after receiving the ransom amount. PW3 Jagdish Pawar further deposed that he alongwith the police again reached near the parking, and he alongwith police official Islamuddin took their positions near the car parking. PW3 Jagdish Pawar further deposed that the remaining police officials also took their positions near the parking. PW3 Jagdish Pawar further deposed that they remained in wait of the caller, but he did not turn up, so, they returned to Allahabad and reached in one hotel. PW3 Jagdish Pawar further deposed that on 19.12.2009 at about 2.00 pm, he received a phone call of the caller at his aforesaid phone and the caller told him that he would reach railway station Mirzapur in the same manner, but he refused for the same and asked the caller to hand over his son at Allahabad railway station. PW3 Jagdish Pawar further deposed that at about 3.303.45 pm, he again received call on his mobile phone and the caller told him that he would meet him alone otherwise his son would be at gun point. PW3 Jagdish Pawar further deposed that the caller again directed him to reach Mai Ka Bagh (sic:
Bai Ka Bagh) for that purpose. PW3 Jagdish Pawar further deposed that he alongwith police official Islamuddin reached the aforesaid Bagh with rickshaw and the other police officials also took their Sessions Case No. 36/14 Page No. 16 of 52 positions around the said Bagh before their reaching. PW3 Jagdish Pawar further deposed that at about 5.005.15 pm, the accused, on a motorcycle, came alongwith his son Pradeep in front of the said Bagh on main road; and stopped his motorcycle and demanded ransom amount from him. PW3 Jagdish Pawar further deposed that Islamuddin asked him to identify his son and he answered in affirmative that his son was sitting on the pillion seat. PW3 Jagdish Pawar further deposed that his son himself got down from the motorcycle, and Islamuddin overpowered the accused and aimed pistol towards him. PW3 Jagdish Pawar further deposed that immediately other police officials came near them and nabbed the accused. PW3 Jagdish Pawar further deposed that the accused was put in their vehicle and his motorcycle (Ex. P7) was also taken in possession by the police. PW3 Jagdish Pawar further deposed that cash in bag was with the police officials which was not delivered to the accused. PW3 Jagdish Pawar further deposed that they reached the hotel. PW3 Jagdish Pawar further deposed that some documents were prepared by the police and he had put his signatures on the same. PW3 Jagdish Pawar further deposed that some documents were prepared by the police at the spot and some at the police station, and thereafter, on 20.12.2009, they returned to Delhi. PW3 Jagdish Pawar further deposed that he alongwith the police officials and the accused left Delhi and reached the village of the accused next day, where the Sessions Case No. 36/14 Page No. 17 of 52 accused got recovered one white pant and one check shirt from his house, and the police took in possession the said clothes (Ex. P4) of his son. PW3 Jagdish Pawar further deposed that when the accused had led them to get recovered the clothes to his village, on the way he had also got recovered his mobile phone from the bushes of the Mai Ka Bagh, and the same was taken into possession by the police.
22. PW3 Jagdish Pawar was not crossexamined by the accused. He was, however, with the permission of the Court, cross examined by the Additional Public Prosecutor. During his cross examination by the Additional Public Prosecutor PW3 Jagdish Pawar denied that the police recorded his statement on 16.12.2009. During his crossexamination by the Additional Public Prosecutor PW3 Jagdish Pawar further denied that mobile number 9999253013 belonged to Munna Saifi, and affirmed that mobile number 9313068431 belonged to Munna Saifi. During his crossexamination by the Additional Public Prosecutor PW3 Jagdish Pawar expressed his ignorance to the question if the caller had called him using mobile number 9999253013 to call him at mobile number 9313068431.
During his crossexamination by the Additional Public Prosecutor PW3 Jagdish Pawar further denied that IO prepared arrest papers Ex. PW10/B and Ex. PW10/C at the place of arrest of the accused, that is, Mai ka Bagh near bus stand, Allahabad. During his crossexamination by the Additional Public Prosecutor PW3 Jagdish Pawar further denied Sessions Case No. 36/14 Page No. 18 of 52 that he put his signatures on Ex. PW10/B and Ex. PW10/C. During his crossexamination by the Additional Public Prosecutor PW3 Jagdish Pawar further denied that the IO interrogated the accused at the place of the arrest in presence of him, HC Islamuddin and SI Narender Kumar, and that the IO recorded disclosure statement Ex. PW11/C of the accused and he put his signature on the same. During his cross examination by the Additional Public Prosecutor PW3 Jagdish Pawar further denied that the seizure memo of motorcycle Ex. P7 was prepared at the place of arrest of the accused, and he put his signature on the same. During his crossexamination by the Additional Public Prosecutor PW3 Jagdish Pawar further denied that the recovery memo Ex. PW10/A was prepared at the place of arrest of the accused. During his crossexamination by the Additional Public Prosecutor PW3 Jagdish Pawar further denied that HC Islamuddin had handed over the bag containing cash (papers) to the accused to complete the deal. During his crossexamination by the Additional Public Prosecutor PW3 Jagdish Pawar further denied that the IO had seized the bag of papers from the possession of the accused. During his cross examination by the Additional Public Prosecutor PW3 Jagdish Pawar affirmed that the IO had inserted memory card in his phone or the calls of the caller were saved in the same. During his cross examination by the Additional Public Prosecutor PW3 Jagdish Pawar further denied that seizure memo Ex. PW11/A was prepared at the Mai Sessions Case No. 36/14 Page No. 19 of 52 ka Bagh when mobile phone of the accused was seized.
23. PW4 SI Baldev Raj during his examinationinchief deposed that on 10.12.2009, he was Division Officer in Division no. 6 in police station Hauz Khas, and on that day he was assigned the DD no. 21B dated 10.12.2009 for inquiry. PW4 SI Baldev Raj further deposed that he alongwith Jagdish, the father of the missing boy, went to the spot and made inquiry from the neighbours as well as from the place where the missing boy used to work. PW4 SI Baldev Raj further deposed that after returning to the police station he sent wireless message regarding the missing boy. PW4 SI Baldev Raj further deposed that thereafter, he informed about the missing boy in the missing persons squad of Delhi Police. PW4 SI Baldev Raj further deposed that he also got printed the poster of the missing boy and sent the said poster to the headquarter. PW4 SI Baldev Raj further deposed that on 14.12.2009, complainant Jagdish Chand had told in the police station that on the mobile phone of Munna Saifi, the tea seller, a ransom call was received qua his son. PW4 SI Baldev Raj further deposed that he recorded the statement of complainant Jagdish and put endorsement Ex. PW4/A on the statement for registration of the case. PW4 SI Baldev Raj further deposed that subsequently the investigation was handed over to Inspector Raj Kumar. During his cross examination PW4 SI Baldev Raj deposed that he did not record in statement of the complainant that a ransom call was received in lieu of Sessions Case No. 36/14 Page No. 20 of 52 the release of his son on the mobile phone of the tea seller.
24. PW5 HC Mohar Singh during his examinationinchief deposed that on 16.3.2010, being posted as MHC (M) in police station Hauz Khas, as per the instructions of Inspector Raj Kumar, he had given three sealed pullandas to Constable Mukesh for depositing the same with FSL, Rohini vide RC no. 158/21/10. PW5 HC Mohar Singh further deposed that Constable Mukesh had given him the receipt of the pullandas only after depositing the same in the FSL. During his examinationinchief PW5 HC Mohar Singh also tendered Ex. PW5/A, copy of entry in the register no. 21. During his crossexamination PW5 HC Mohar Singh deposed that he had no personal knowledge about the case.
25. PW6 Constable Mukesh during his examinationinchief deposed that on 16.3.2010, he was entrusted with three sealed pullandas by the MHC (M) for depositing the same with the FSL, Rohini vide RC no. 158/21/10. PW6 Constable Mukesh further deposed that he had deposited the pullandas in the FSL and handed over the receipt to the MHC (M). PW6 Constable Mukesh further deposed that during his custody the sealed pullandas remained intact and nobody tampered with the same. During his crossexamination PW6 Constable Mukesh deposed that he had no personal knowledge about the case.
26. PW7 Manish Shihani during his examinationinchief Sessions Case No. 36/14 Page No. 21 of 52 deposed that on 22.2.2010, he alongwith Sandeep Sharma were called by Inspector Raj Kumar at FSL, Rohini, where sample of voice of accused Rahul Kumar Singh was to be taken by the FSL expert/officer. PW7 Manish Shihani further deposed that in his presence, voice sample of accused Rahul Kumar Singh was taken by the FSL expert in two cassettes. PW7 Manish Shihani further deposed that the FSL officer had obtained his signatures on the cassette of voice sample and the seizure memo Ex. PW1/A bore his signature. During his cross examination PW7 Manish Shihani deposed that both the cassettes were played before him after recording.
27. PW8 Sandeep Sharma during his examinationinchief deposed that on 22.2.2010 at 10.00/11.00 am, he was called by Manish Shihani for going to FSL, Rohini as the sample of voice of one accused was to be taken by the FSL expert/officer. PW8 Sandeep Sharma further deposed that in his presence, voice sample of accused Rahul Kumar Singh was taken by the FSL expert in two cassettes. PW8 Sandeep Sharma further deposed that after preparation of the CD, the FSL officer had affixed their stamp. PW8 Sandeep Sharma further deposed that the FSL officer had obtained his signatures on the cassette of sample voice and the seizure memo Ex. PW1/A bore his signature. During his crossexamination PW8 Sandeep Sharma deposed that at the time of the recording Inspector Raj Kumar was not in the room, but was standing outside the room. During his cross Sessions Case No. 36/14 Page No. 22 of 52 examination PW8 Sandeep Sharma further deposed that the cassette was played before him by the FSL official..
28. PW9 Munna Saifi during his examinationinchief deposed that in the year 2009, he used to run a tea shop at house no. 42, Shahpur Jat, New Delhi. PW9 Munna Saifi further deposed that on 10.12.2009 between 8.00 am and 9.00 am, the accused came to his shop and introduced himself as Saksham Singh. PW9 Munna Saifi further deposed that the accused inquired from him about Jagdish, and wanted to know certain information about him (Jagdish). PW9 Munna Saifi further deposed that the accused also asked for the mobile number of Jagdish, but he replied that he did not know his mobile number. PW9 Munna Saifi further deposed that the accused ordered tea, and called Pradeep, son of Jagdish, and they both took tea at his shop. PW9 Munna Saifi further deposed that the accused asked for his mobile number. PW9 Munna Saifi further deposed that he had some suspicion as to why the accused was asking for his mobile number, but gave him his mobile number. PW9 Munna Saifi further deposed that he had also taken the mobile number of the accused which started with numbers 9999. PW9 Munna Saifi further deposed that he gave his mobile phone number 9313068431. PW9 Munna Saifi further deposed that the house of Jagdish Pawar was situated just opposite to his shop. PW9 Munna Saifi further deposed that on 14.12.2009, while he was praying, someone called up on his mobile phone and the caller was Sessions Case No. 36/14 Page No. 23 of 52 asking about Jagdish Pawar. PW9 Munna Saifi further deposed that he replied that Jagdish was present outside and asked the caller to make call after some time and asked his son to take his mobile phone to Jagdish Pawar so that he could talk if any call was received on that phone. During his crossexamination PW9 Munna Saifi deposed that he did not state to Jagdish Pawar about the accused, and that the accused introduced himself as Saksham Singh and called Pradeep.
29. PW10 SI Narender Kumar during his examinationin chief deposed that on 19.12.2009, while on visit to Allahabad in connection with the investigation of this case, he joined the investigation of this case with Inspector Raj Kumar; and the complainant was with them. PW10 SI Narender Kumar further deposed that the kidnapper called up the complainant and demanded ransom from him. PW10 SI Narender Kumar further deposed that the complainant received the call of the kidnapper on his mobile phone. PW10 SI Narender Kumar further deposed that they laid a trap near Mirzapur railway station, but the kidnapper did not turn up there. PW10 SI Narender Kumar further deposed that later in the evening at about 3.45 pm the kidnapper called the complainant at Bai Ka Bagh near State Bank of India, Allahabad; and they laid a trap near State Bank of India. PW10 SI Narender Kumar further deposed that HC Islamuddin was instructed to accompany the complainant to the place where the kidnapper called him. PW10 SI Narender Kumar further Sessions Case No. 36/14 Page No. 24 of 52 deposed that at about 4.30 pm, HC Islamuddin caught the kidnapper and recovered the kidnapped boy from his possession. PW10 SI Narender Kumar further deposed that they reached the spot and found the accused present over there alongwith the kidnapped boy, HC Islamuddin and a motorcycle. PW10 SI Narender Kumar further deposed that Inspector Raj Kumar prepared recovery memo Ex. PW10/A of the boy. PW10 SI Narender Kumar further deposed that the accused was arrested and in this connection memo Ex. PW10/B was prepared. PW10 SI Narender Kumar further deposed that personal search of the accused was conducted and in this connection memo Ex. PW10/C was prepared. PW10 SI Narender Kumar further deposed that motorcycle was seized and in this connection memo Ex. PW 10/D was prepared. PW10 SI Narender Kumar further deposed that at the time when HC Islamuddin was directed to accompany the complainant, the complainant was given a bundle of papers Ex. P1 appearing to be currency notes and in this connection memo Ex. PW10/E was prepared. PW10 SI Narender Kumar further deposed that later the said bundle of papers was recovered from the possession of the accused and the same was converted into cloth pullanda which was sealed with the seal of RKS and seized vide memo Ex. PW10/F. PW10 SI Narender Kumar further deposed that kidnapped boy was handed over to the complainant and in this connection memo Ex. PW10/G was prepared. PW10 SI Narender Kumar further deposed that on Sessions Case No. 36/14 Page No. 25 of 52 20.12.2009, the IO had taken the mobile phone of the complainant and its memory card Ex. P2 for making CD of the conversations that took place between the complainant and the accused and in this connection seizure memos Ex. PW10/H and Ex. PW10/I were prepared. PW10 SI Narender Kumar further deposed that he prepared two audio CDs from the memory card on the computer of the police station, out of which one CD was sealed with the seal of RKS and deposited in the malkhana, and the second CD was kept on the file for investigation purpose and in this regard memo Ex. PW10/J was prepared. During his crossexamination PW10 SI Narender Kumar deposed that they did not associate any local police official in the investigation. During his crossexamination PW10 SI Narender Kumar further deposed that they reached Allahabad on 18.12.2009 at about 8.00, 9.00 or 10.00 am. During his crossexamination PW10 SI Narender Kumar further deposed that they apprehended the accused on 19.12.2009 at about 4.00 or 4.30 pm. During his crossexamination PW10 SI Narender Kumar further deposed that after arresting the accused they went to the local police station, where they remained for about half an hour or one hour. During his crossexamination PW10 SI Narender Kumar further deposed that on 19.12.2009 he did not go to Mirzapur. During his crossexamination PW10 SI Narender Kumar further deposed that no mobile phone was recovered from the accused, and two SIM cards and a pen drive was recovered in personal search of the accused.
Sessions Case No. 36/14 Page No. 26 of 52During his crossexamination PW10 SI Narender Kumar deposed that they left Delhi at about 11.30 pm or 12.00 in the midnight for Allahabad by road by 23 private vehicles. During his cross examination PW10 SI Narender Kumar further deposed that no mobile phone was recovered from the accused, and two SIM cards and a pen drive was all which was recovered during his personal search.
30. PW11 ASI Islamuddin during his examinationinchief deposed that on 18.12.2009, he had joined the investigation of this case with Inspector Raj Kumar, SI Narender Kumar, the complainant and other staff. PW11 ASI Islamuddin further deposed that they all went to Allahabad in two private vehicles in connection with the investigation of the case. PW11 ASI Islamuddin further deposed that the kidnapper was regularly calling the complainant, the father of the kidnapped child on his mobile phone stating that his child was with him. PW11 ASI Islamuddin further deposed that the kidnapper had stated to the complainant to come to Allahabad and thereafter he had to come to Mirzapur through Chunar Express, a local train. PW11 ASI Islamuddin further deposed that they reached Allahabad at about 10.00 or 11.00 am on the next day alongwith the complainant. PW11 ASI Islamuddin further deposed that at Allahabad, the kidnapper phoned the complainant and asked him if he had reached Allahabad, and on receiving the answer in affirmative, he said that he had to come to Mirzapur by Chunar Express, which would leave from Allahabad at Sessions Case No. 36/14 Page No. 27 of 52 about 6.00 pm. PW11 ASI Islamuddin further deposed that they all had taken the train to Mirzapur. PW11 ASI Islamuddin further deposed that even in the train calls had been received from the kidnapper inquiring from the complainant whether he had taken the train. PW11 ASI Islamuddin further deposed that the kidnapper again called in midway asking to throw the money at the station just before Mirzapur station. PW11 ASI Islamuddin further deposed that the complainant refused to throw the money at the station and asked to first hand over the child and then to receive the money; and the train had passed the station. PW11 ASI Islamuddin further deposed that again a call was received by the complainant asking to step down at the Mirzapur station; that the kidnapper again called the complainant on his phone asking him to sit on lonely bench at a distance of half kilometer at the platform. PW11 ASI Islamuddin further deposed that he alongwith the complainant had sat on the bench at the platform and assumed the role of the nephew of the complainant. PW11 ASI Islamuddin further deposed that they sat there for an hour, but nobody turned up. PW11 ASI Islamuddin further deposed that after an hour, again a call was received by the complainant and he was told that they were two persons and asked to come outside of platform near the police gypsy stationed there. PW11 ASI Islamuddin further deposed that remaining members of the team were lying at the platform. PW11 ASI Islamuddin further deposed that he alongwith the complainant Sessions Case No. 36/14 Page No. 28 of 52 reached near the police gypsy at a distance of 200 meters, and the kidnapper again called and asked them to go back to Allahabad, and therefore, they returned to Allahabad after taking a train. PW11 ASI Islamuddin further deposed that on 19.12.2009 at about 3.45 pm, the kidnapper called the complainant and asked him to come to Bai Ka Bagh near State Bank of India, and warned the complainant to be careful and he should not try to dodge. PW11 ASI Islamuddin further deposed that he alongwith the complainant proceeded to the Bai Ka Bagh on a rickshaw; and remaining team went to the Bai Ka Bagh through private vehicle. PW11 ASI Islamuddin further deposed that the kidnapper again called and warned them, and this time he received the call. PW11 ASI Islamuddin further deposed that they reached the Bai Ka Bagh within 1520 minutes, where two persons, on Hero Honda Splendor motorcycle stopped their vehicle and asked to hand over the money. PW11 ASI Islamuddin further deposed that the kidnapped child was sitting on the rear seat of the motorcycle. PW11 ASI Islamuddin further deposed that he asked the complainant whether the child sitting on the rear seat was his son, and when he answered in affirmative, he handed over the child to the complainant at the Bai Ka Bagh. PW11 ASI Islamuddin further deposed that he handed over the bag containing the money to the accused and apprehended him on the gun point. PW11 ASI Islamuddin further deposed that thereafter other team members arrived at the spot. PW11 Sessions Case No. 36/14 Page No. 29 of 52 ASI Islamuddin further deposed that two mobile phone SIMs, motorcycle and one pen drive were recovered from the pocket of the accused, and mobile phone was not found with the accused at that time. PW11 ASI Islamuddin further deposed that on 20.12.2009, he again joined investigation in this case alongwith Inspector Raj Kumar, SI Narender and complainant Jagdish. PW11 ASI Islamuddin further deposed that Inspector Raj Kumar had taken the memory card from SI Narender Kumar with the help of computer, and two CDs were prepared by SI Narender Kumar and marked as C1 and C2, and the said CDs were prepared from the memory card of mobile phone of complainant Jagdish Pawar wherein the conversations were recorded. PW11 ASI Islamuddin further deposed that CD marked as C1 was seized after converting the same in cloth parcel and sealing the same with the seal of RKS and in this connection memo Ex. PW10/J was prepared. PW11 ASI Islamuddin further deposed that CD marked C2 remained with the IO in the file of investigation. PW11 ASI Islamuddin further deposed that the mobile phone of the complainant was also seized. PW11 ASI Islamuddin further deposed that memory card of the mobile phone of the complainant was kept in a match box and after sealing with the seal of RKS seized vide memo Ex. PW10/I. PW11 ASI Islamuddin further deposed that on 22.12.2009 and 23.12.2009 also he joined the investigation of the case. PW11 ASI Islamuddin further deposed that on 22.12.2009, he alongwith IO Sessions Case No. 36/14 Page No. 30 of 52 Inspector Raj Kumar, the complainant, the accused and other police staff left for Allahabad and reached the Bai Ka Bagh. PW11 ASI Islamuddin further deposed that the accused led them to a park and pointed out a mobile phone no. 9999253013, make Nokia in the bushes and produced before the IO and in this connection memo Ex. PW11/A was prepared. PW11 ASI Islamuddin further deposed that regarding the said mobile phone the accused had already disclosed that he had conversations with the complainant with that phone after kidnapping. PW11 ASI Islamuddin further deposed that thereafter the accused also led them to his village Yadav Pur towards Mirzapur and further led to his house in that village and from a room in the house one check shirt of brown colour and one dusty pant of white colour was taken out by him from a hook. PW11 ASI Islamuddin further deposed that the complainant identified the pant and shirt as being that of his son who was kidnapped. PW11 ASI Islamuddin further deposed that the clothes were converted into a cloth parcel and sealed with seal of RKS and in this connection seizure memo Ex. PW11/B was prepared. PW11 ASI Islamuddin further deposed that the disclosure statement Ex. PW11/C of the accused was recorded. PW11 ASI Islamuddin further deposed that the motorcycle of the accused was seized on 19.12.2009 and in this connection memo Ex. PW10/D was prepared. During his crossexamination PW11 ASI Islamuddin denied that voice of the accused was feeded/recorded in the phone Sessions Case No. 36/14 Page No. 31 of 52 subsequently during the police custody.
31. PW12 Inspector Raj Kumar during his examinationin chief deposed that on 16.12.2009 he was posted as Inspector (investigation) in police station Hauz Khas, and on that day the investigation of the present case was assigned to him. PW12 Inspector Raj Kumar further deposed that he had got joined complainant Jagdish Kumar in the investigation and his supplementary statement was recorded and thereafter he also recorded the statement of Munna Saifi. PW12 Inspector Raj Kumar further deposed that as the ransom call was received by Munna Saifi and was conveyed to the complainant, he added section 364A of the Indian Penal Code. PW12 Inspector Raj Kumar further deposed that on 17.12.2009, ransom call was received by the complainant and as the cell phone of the complainant had no facility to record the call, therefore, he got changed the cell phone handset and supplied the phone provided by the SHO of the police station having facility of recording and put the SIM card of the complainant in it. PW12 Inspector Raj Kumar further deposed that finally in the evening, from the conversation, it was revealed that the accused had called the complainant to come at Allahabad alongwith fifteen lakh rupees, and thereafter he prepared a raiding party consisting of himself, SI Narender, HC Islamuddin, HC Hukum Chand, Constable Manoj, Constable Munender, Constable Pushpender, HC Sanjeev and others and went to Allahabad alongwith Sessions Case No. 36/14 Page No. 32 of 52 the complainant in search of his kidnapped son. PW12 Inspector Raj Kumar further deposed that on 18.12.2009 they reached Allahabad, and even after reaching Allahabad conversation took place between the accused and the complainant on their mobile phones. PW12 Inspector Raj Kumar further deposed that they had taken a hotel for their accommodation and thereafter the complainant received a message at Allahabad from the accused to take the train Chunar Express, which was scheduled to depart at 6.00 pm and further asked to wait for his instructions. PW12 Inspector Raj Kumar further deposed that they had boarded the train and in the train the complainant received another call from the accused, who asked about his position; and that the accused further instructed the complainant to reach the gate of the train and to throw the bag of fifteen lakh rupees. PW12 Inspector Raj Kumar further deposed that they did not allow the complainant to throw the bag and asked him to make clear to the accused in another call received that first he would receive his child and then he would hand over the money. PW12 Inspector Raj Kumar further deposed that at another call the accused further instructed the complainant to step down at Mirzapur Railway Station. PW12 Inspector Raj Kumar further deposed that before reaching Mirzapur, he decided to depute HC Islamuddin as the nephew of the complainant and also briefed him in this regard. PW12 Inspector Raj Kumar further deposed that having reached Mirzapur railway station, he and other persons of police party Sessions Case No. 36/14 Page No. 33 of 52 alighted from the train and dispersed, whereas HC Islamuddin and the complainant were together. PW12 Inspector Raj Kumar further deposed that HC Islamuddin and the complainant sat on a bench on the platform and he and other police persons kept a watch on them and waited for the kidnapper. PW12 Inspector Raj Kumar further deposed that in the meanwhile, the complainant received a telephonic call from the kidnapper and HC Islamuddin also talked to him on the mobile phone of the complainant. PW12 Inspector Raj Kumar further deposed that after waiting for a long time, the complainant and HC Islamuddin started walking towards exit gate of the railway station and subsequently, HC Islamuddin and the complainant told him that the kidnapper was suspecting that the police was with them. PW12 Inspector Raj Kumar further deposed that thereafter they decided to come back to Allahabad, and as they were preparing to leave for Allahabad, the complainant again received a call from the kidnapper asking him to wait in the parking area of the railway station. PW12 Inspector Raj Kumar further deposed that the complainant and HC Islamuddin waited for the kidnapper and they all scattered in the nearby area. PW12 Inspector Raj Kumar further deposed that they waited again and after waiting for about one or one and a half hour HC Islamuddin and the complainant moved from the place where they were sitting. PW12 Inspector Raj Kumar further deposed that he came to know from HC Islamuddin that the kidnapper had told them either Sessions Case No. 36/14 Page No. 34 of 52 to stay at Mirzapur or to go back to Allahabad as he would not be coming right then and that he would be calling in the morning. PW12 Inspector Raj Kumar further deposed that they all returned to Allahabad, and in the morning the kidnapper again called up the complainant and asked him to throw the bag containing the money from the running train, but the complainant did not agree. PW12 Inspector Raj Kumar further deposed that at about 3.00 pm the kidnapper again called up the complainant and asked him to come at Bai Ka Bagh, Allahabad. PW12 Inspector Raj Kumar further deposed that he briefed his staff and proceeded to the Bai Ka Bagh. PW12 Inspector Raj Kumar further deposed that after receiving the call of 3.00 pm, by way of handing over memo Ex.PW10/E, he handed over the bag containing papers of the size of the currency notes to the complainant and after receiving the same, the complainant accompanied by HC Islamuddin, who was pretending as the nephew of the complainant, in a cycle rickshaw, proceeded towards Bai Ka Bagh, Allahabad and he alongwith other members of his team was following them in cycle rickshaws and by foot, keeping a distance. PW12 Inspector Raj Kumar further deposed that the complainant alongwith HC Islamuddin, having reached Bai Ka Bagh, Allahabad kept on roaming around in wait of the abductor, and he alongwith other members of the team had taken their positions near them. PW12 Inspector Raj Kumar further deposed that after about 30 or 35 minutes Sessions Case No. 36/14 Page No. 35 of 52 of reaching the Bai Ka Bagh, two persons came on a black colour Hero Honda motorcycle whose faces were visible and they stopped their motorcycle near the rickshaw in which the complainant alongwith HC Islamuddin was sitting. PW12 Inspector Raj Kumar further deposed that the rider of the motorcycle demanded bag of money from complainant Jagdish Pawar. PW12 Inspector Raj Kumar further deposed that the son of the complainant was sitting on the pillion of the motorcycle, and having seen his son, the complainant instantly told HC Islamuddin that the person sitting on the pillion was his son. PW12 Inspector Raj Kumar further deposed that instantly HC Islamuddin took out his service pistol and pointed towards the accused, and as soon as he took out his service pistol and pointed towards the accused, he alongwith SI Narender came there and overpowered the accused. PW12 Inspector Raj Kumar further deposed that the complainant took his son into his custody and in this regard memo Ex. PW10/A was prepared by SI Narender on his dictation. PW12 Inspector Raj Kumar further deposed that the motorcycle (Ex. P7) which the accused was riding was also seized and in this connection seizure memo Ex. PW10/D was prepared. PW12 Inspector Raj Kumar further deposed that the registration certificate Ex. PW12/A of the motorcycle was also seized by him. PW12 Inspector Raj Kumar further deposed that accused Rahul Kumar Singh was arrested and in this connection arrest memo Ex.PW10/B was prepared.
Sessions Case No. 36/14 Page No. 36 of 52PW12 Inspector Raj Kumar further deposed that the personal search of the accused was conducted by way of memo Ex. PW10/C and during his personal search, two SIM cards, a pen drive, and Rs.45/ in cash were found kept in a purse. PW12 Inspector Raj Kumar further deposed that the bag given to the complainant on earlier occasion, which was handed over by him to the accused at the Bai Ka Bagh, was recovered from the accused and the same after converting into a pullanda, was seized and in this connection memo Ex. PW10/F was prepared. PW12 Inspector Raj Kumar further deposed that the son of the complainant was handed over to his father and in this regard memo Ex. PW10/G was prepared. PW12 Inspector Raj Kumar further deposed that the statement of Jagdish Pawar, as per his version, was recorded in the handwriting by SI Narender on his dictation, and the disclosure statement Ex. PW11/C of the accused was also recorded. PW12 Inspector Raj Kumar further deposed that thereafter they proceeded to Delhi from Allahabad and reached Delhi on 20.12.2009. PW12 Inspector Raj Kumar further deposed that after reaching Delhi, he deposited the seized articles in the police malkhana and the accused was put in the police lockup. PW12 Inspector Raj Kumar further deposed that the mobile phone (Ex. P3) of the complainant Jagdish Pawar was taken into possession by way of seizure memo Ex.PW10/H and its memory card (Ex. P2) was taken out. PW12 Inspector Raj Kumar further deposed that subsequently SI Narender, under his Sessions Case No. 36/14 Page No. 37 of 52 supervision, on a computer prepared two CDs of the conversations which took place between the complainant and the accused and recorded in the mobile phone of the complainant. PW12 Inspector Raj Kumar further deposed that the said two CDs were marked as C1 and C2, out of which CD mark C1 was converted into a pullanda, sealed with seal bearing impression RKS and seized by way of seizure memo Ex.PW10/J and deposited in the police malkhana; and the other CD mark C2 was kept on the file for further investigation. PW12 Inspector Raj Kumar further deposed that the memory card Ex. P2, taken out of the mobile phone of the complainant, was placed in a matchbox and converted into a pullanda which was sealed with the seal of RKS and seized by memo Ex. PW10/I. PW12 Inspector Raj Kumar further deposed that on his application the accused was remanded to police custody for a period of eight days. PW12 Inspector Raj Kumar further deposed that on 21.12.2009, he with the aid of SI Narender prepared transcript Ex. PW12/B of the conversations that took place between the complainant and the accused and contained in CD mark C2. PW12 Inspector Raj Kumar further deposed that on 22.12.2009, at the disclosure of the accused, for effecting recovery of the clothes of Pradeep, the son of the complainant, and the mobile phone of the accused, he alongwith the complainant, HC Islamuddin, the accused and other police persons left for Allahabad. PW12 Inspector Raj Kumar further deposed that on 23.12.2009, at the Sessions Case No. 36/14 Page No. 38 of 52 instance of the accused, he alongwith the accused and other persons reached the village of the accused, where the accused led them to his house, where from a room, he produced one pant and one shirt (Ex. P
4), which were identified by the complainant as that of his son Pradeep. PW12 Inspector Raj Kumar further deposed that the pant and the shirt were converted into a sealed pullanda and seized by way of seizure memo Ex.PW11/B. PW12 Inspector Raj Kumar further deposed that thereafter on 23.12.2009 he alongwith the police team, the complainant and the accused returned to Allahabad where at the pointing out of the accused mobile phone with number 9999253013 was recovered and seized by way of memo Ex.PW11/A. PW12 Inspector Raj Kumar further deposed that on 18.02.2010 an application for collecting the voice sample of the accused, made before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, was allowed vide order Ex.PW12/C and thereafter for collecting the voice sample of the accused on 22.02.2010, he reached FSL, Rohini, where the accused was also produced in judicial custody. PW12 Inspector Raj Kumar further deposed that at the FSL, in the presence of three witnesses, Manish Shihani, Sandeep Sharma and SI Narender Kumar, the voice sample of the accused was taken by expert Sunil Kumar. PW12 Inspector Raj Kumar further deposed that the expert had recorded the voice of the accused in two audio cassettes and marked them as SV1 and SV2, and both the said audio cassettes were converted into sealed pullanda Sessions Case No. 36/14 Page No. 39 of 52 which was seized by way of memo Ex.PW1/A. PW12 Inspector Raj Kumar further deposed that both the cassettes were brought to the police station and deposited in the malkhana. PW12 Inspector Raj Kumar further deposed that on 16.03.2010, both the said cassettes (Ex. P8 and Ex. P9) alongwith CD mark C1 (Ex. P6) were sent to FSL, Rohini through Constable Mukesh for analysis, who deposited the same in the FSL. PW12 Inspector Raj Kumar further deposed that he also obtained the call detail records mark PW12/A of mobile phone number 9999253013. PW12 Inspector Raj Kumar further deposed that he obtained the FSL report Ex.PW12/D and submitted in the court.
32. In the light of the charge framed against the accused and the arguments advanced before the court, the first point for determination is: whether on 10.12.2009 or subsequently, accused Rahul Kumar Singh, by force compelled, or by any deceitful means induced, Pradeep, son of PW3 Jagdish Pawar to go from his place of employment or from any other place in Delhi, and thus abducted him?
33. It is argued by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that from the evidence led by the prosecution following circumstances have been proved, namely: that on 19.12.2009 at the Bai Ka Bagh, Pradeep was found on the motorcycle with the accused; that on 10.12.2009, in the morning the accused having introduced himself as Saksham Singh made inquiry about Jagdish Pawar from PW9 Munna Saifi and partook tea with his son Pradeep after calling him; that the Sessions Case No. 36/14 Page No. 40 of 52 voice recorded in the mobile phone of PW3 Jagdish Pawar matched with the voice sample of the accused; and that the accused got recovered mobile phone from the Bai Ka Bagh and also got recovered the clothes of Pradeep from his house. It is also submitted by the learned Additional Public prosecutor that from the said proved circumstances it can be safely inferred, beyond doubt, that it was the accused who abducted Pradeep, son of PW3 Jagdish Pawar. Counsel for the accused has challenged these contentions of the prosecution.
34. Regarding the proof of the first circumstance that on 19.12.2009 at the Bai Ka Bagh, Pradeep was found on the motorcycle with the accused, it is argued by counsel for the accused that the prosecution has not produced any evidence to prove that during the period 17.12.2009 and 19.12.2009, PW3 Jagdish Pawar undertook any journey to Allahabad, and from there to Mirzapur, and from there to Allahabad and from there to the Bai Ka Bagh. It is also argued by counsel for the accused that there are contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses regarding the number and the description of vehicles used by them in performing the journey. It is further submitted by counsel for the accused that the transcript of the alleged conversations Ex. PW12/B is completely silent on the point that the caller ever called PW3 Jagdish Pawar to come to the Bai Ka Bagh with ransom money. On the other hand the contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is that the testimonies of PW3 Jagdish Sessions Case No. 36/14 Page No. 41 of 52 Pawar, PW10 SI Narender Kumar, PW11 HC Islamuddin and PW12 Inspector Raj Kumar are consistent on this aspect, and thus, it has been proved that 19.12.2009 at the Bai Ka Bagh the accused came to receive the ransom money alongwith Pradeep, son of PW3 Jagdish Pawar.
35. PW3 Jagdish Pawar, PW10 SI Narender Kumar, PW11 HC Islamuddin and PW12 Inspector Raj Kumar during their respective examination, unequivocally, deposed that on 19.12.2009, while they were in Allahbad, in the evening PW3 Jagdish Pawar received a call on his mobile phone from the ransom caller, pursuant to which PW3 Jagdish Pawar alongwith PW11 HC Islamuddin reached the Bai Ka Bagh and other police officials also reached there and took their respective positions. The said four witnesses have also deposed that at the Bai Ka Bagh, on motorcycle Ex. P7, the accused came alongwith Pradeep and he was overpowered. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, especially that of PW3 Jagdish Pawar, are consistent and believable on this aspect and the minor contradictions and inconsistencies here and there, as pointed out by counsel for the accused, do not make the same tainted. The circumstance that on 19.12.2009 at the Bai Ka Bagh, Pradeep was found on the motorcycle Ex. P7 with the accused has been proved beyond doubt.
36. In proof of the other circumstance that on 10.12.2009, in the morning the accused having introduced himself as Saksham Singh Sessions Case No. 36/14 Page No. 42 of 52 to PW9 Munna Saifi made inquiry about Jagdish Pawar from him and partook tea with his son Pradeep after calling him and thus, it was the accused who abducted Pradeep, the prosecution has strongly relied upon the testimony of PW9 Munna Saifi. I am afraid the contention of the prosecution in this regard cannot be accepted for the following reason. According to PW9 Munna Saifi on 10.12.2009 at 8.00 am to 9.00 am, the accused came to his tea shop and introduced himself as one Saksham Singh, and thereafter, having inquired about Jagdish Pawar took tea with Pradeep and also took his number. It is noteworthy that after arrest of the accused, no test identification parade (TIP) of the accused was organized by the police for his identification by PW9 Munna Saifi and to ascertain that the accused was the person who met him (PW9 Munna Saifi) as Saksham Singh. In the considered opinion of the Court, in the circumstances of the case the police had sufficient time to conceal the identity of the accused and to organize a TIP, which, in the case like the present one, to establish the identity of the accused as the person who met him as Saksham Singh, must have been organized. The identification of the accused by PW9 Munna Saifi first time in the court, when the accused was already in the dock and thus was easily distinguishable does not inspire confidence of the Court. Furthermore, in the light of the testimony of PW3 Jagdish Pawar, who during his examinationin chief, on 28.3.2011, deposed that on 10.12.2009, first time he reported Sessions Case No. 36/14 Page No. 43 of 52 the matter to the police, and prior to that (vide his testimony dated 03.6.2013) he and his family had made search for Pradeep here and there for one or two days before reporting the matter to the police, the presence of the accused in the shop of PW9 Munna Saifi on 10.12.2009 in the morning, and his taking tea with Pradeep appears doubtful. If, as per the testimony of PW3 Jagdish Pawar, Pradeep was missing one or two days prior to 10.12.2009, then how come the accused could have partook tea with him in the morning of 10.12.2009? The testimony of PW9 Munna Saifi is not decisive for reaching any conclusion regarding the identity of the accused and his involvement in the offence. His testimony, regarding the involvement of the accused, is a weak link in the story of the prosecution and is not reliable.
37. Regarding the third circumstance that the voice recorded in the mobile phone of PW3 Jagdish Pawar matched with the voice sample of the accused, strong reliance has been placed by the prosecution on report Ex. PW12/D to argue that the accused was the person who was having conversations with PW3 Jagdish Pawar and was threatening him. As emerged from the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the contents of memory card Ex. P2 was transferred from it to two CDs and one CD (Ex. P6) was sent to FSL for comparison with the voice sample of the accused, contained in cassettes Ex. P8 and Ex. P9 and analysis. The expert (Dr. C.P. Singh) Sessions Case No. 36/14 Page No. 44 of 52 did not appear before the Court and his report Ex. PW12/D was tendered in evidence by PW12 Inspector Raj Kumar. At the time of tendering of Ex. PW12/D, which under section 293 of Cr.P.C. is per se admissible, objection was taken by counsel for the accused about its admissibility, but no application was made for calling Dr. C.P. Singh for his examination. Report Ex. PW12/D, nevertheless, require serious scrutiny.
38. As per the contents of report Ex. PW12/D, on 16.3.2010, three sealed parcels connected with the present case were received in the office of the FSL, Rohini through Constable Mukesh Kumar (PW6), and out of the said three parcels, Parcel1 was containing one CD of "PLEOMAX" make, found marked C1, containing one folder, namely, "Recording" containing ten audio files, and the marked calls were having following file descriptions, namely: (1) Recording/919999253013_17072007_143129..wav, (2) Recording/919999253013_17072007_145927..wav, (3) Recording/919999253013_17122009_181048..wav, (4) Recording/919999253013_17122009_184812..wav, (5) Recording/919999253013_18122009_065224..wav, and (6) Recording/919999253013_19122009_102652..wav. A perusal of report Ex. PW12/D further reveals that out of the remaining two parcels only one parcel was opened by the expert which was found containing one audio cassette of "TSeries" make, found Sessions Case No. 36/14 Page No. 45 of 52 marked SV1, containing specimen voice sample of Rahul Kumar Singh.
39. No explanation has come on record or during the arguments from the prosecution side as to why only six files were analyzed by the expert when the folder, found contained in the CD sent for analysis, was containing ten audio files. Further, the descriptions of the files sent for analysis shows that the description of each sound file was having five parts, that is, (1) the name of the folder in which it was contained (Recording); (2) the number of mobile phone from which the call was received; (3) the date of recording; (4) the time at which the call received or ended; and (5) the format in which the audio file was saved (wav). Now, curiously, out of the six audio files, found contained in folder "Recording" of CD Ex. P6, the first two files were having date 17.7.2007 and not 17.12.2009 or 18.12.2009 or 19.12.2009, whereas the other four files were dated 17.12.2009 or 18.12.2009 or 19.12.2009. Now, a phone, being a computer system, having capability to record the voice and to save the same in a particular format by default, cannot change the date of recording from the month of December, 2009 to the month of July, 2007, unless its contents is tampered with or the phone itself is defective. The fact that in report Ex. PW12/D, the first two files are having dates of 2007, indicate that the sound files may have been tampered with before their transfer to CD Ex. P6, which was analyzed Sessions Case No. 36/14 Page No. 46 of 52 by Dr. C.P. Singh. Further, as per the testimonies of PW10 SI Narender Kumar, PW11 HC Islamuddin and PW12 Inspector Raj Kumar, the CDs were prepared on 20.12.2009. And as per the testimonies of other prosecution witnesses, after taking voice samples on 22.2.2010, the same was sent for analysis with two cassettes Ex. P8 and Ex. P9 on 16.3.2010, after a considerable time. No explanation has come on record for such delay in dispatching the CD and the cassettes to FSL for analysis.
40. Further, as per the testimonies of PW10 SI Narender Kumar, PW11 HC Islamuddin and PW12 Inspector Raj Kumar, after preparation of CDs, one CD Ex. P6, which was sent to FSL for analysis, was sealed and deposited in the malkhana, whereas the second was kept in the police file. But, no evidence has come on record during the testimony of PW5 HC Mohar Singh, MHC (M) or otherwise that the said crucial evidence (Ex. P6) was ever deposited in the malkhana or during his custody the same was not tampered with. In these circumstances, the integrity of the contents of CD Ex. P6, sent for analysis to the FSL, becomes doubtful, and therefore, the Court is of the considered view that it is not safe to rely upon report Ex. PW12/D to hold that the accused was the person who had been talking to PW3 Jagdish Pawar and was giving threats and instructions to him.
41. Other circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is the Sessions Case No. 36/14 Page No. 47 of 52 factum of recovery of the phone of the accused from the bushes near the Bai Ka Bagh and recovery of the clothes of Pradeep from the house of the accused. In so far as recovery of the phone of the accused from the place near the Bai Ka Bagh, Allahabad is concerned, there are contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses on this aspect, so much so, PW3 Jagdish Pawar and PW11 HC Islamuddin during their examination deposed that when the accused led the police to get recovered the clothes of Pradeep from his house, in the way he got recovered his phone from the bushes of Bai Ka Bagh, whereas PW12 Inspector Raj Kumar during his examination deposed that on 23.12.2009, firstly, he alongwith the accused, the complainant and the other police persons went to the village of the accused, where, from his house he got recovered clothes Ex. P4 of Pradeep and thereafter, on the same day they visited Bai Ka Bagh from where the accused got recovered phone Ex. P5. In the face of these contradictions it becomes highly doubtful that on 23.12.2009 the accused got recovered mobile phone Ex. P5. Even otherwise, it is very hard to believe that on 19.12.2009, when the accused was overpowered and arrested by the police, he had opportunity to throw mobile phone Ex.P5 in the bushes near the Bai Ka Bagh, especially when there is proof (vide personal search memo Ex. PW10/C) that a phone was recovered from the possession of the accused at the time of his arrest. Even otherwise the recovery of mobile phone Ex. P5 does not serve any purpose as no Sessions Case No. 36/14 Page No. 48 of 52 record has been proved by the prosecution as per law to prove that the phone Ex. P5 with IMEI no. 358010032044130 was being used in making calls to PW3 Jagdish Pawar.
42. In so far as the question of the recovery of the clothes of Pradeep at the instance of the accused is concerned, the recovery of clothes Ex. P4 does not indicate that the said clothes were the same clothes that Pradeep was wearing at his work place. In this regard it is noteworthy that in his statement Ex. PW3/A, PW3 Jagdish Pawar stated the police that at the time of his missing Pradeep was wearing clothes of white colour usually worn by a mechanic, whereas the shirt recovered from the house of the accused was a check shirt of brown colour. It is doubtful that the check shirt that was seized from the house of the accused was that of Pradeep.
43. In the light of the aforementioned circumstances, some other vital points, having bearing on the decision in the case in hand are required to be noticed.
44. From the definitions of 'kidnapping from lawful guardianship' and 'abduction', referred to hereinabove, it can be discerned that in 'kidnapping' consent of the person taken or enticed is immaterial. In 'abduction' consent of the person removed, if freely and voluntarily given, condones it. In a trial for the offence of abduction it is incumbent on the prosecution to prove, by adducing direct or circumstantial evidence, that the person, stated to be abducted, was by Sessions Case No. 36/14 Page No. 49 of 52 force compelled, or by deceitful means induced to go from one place to other.
45. In the present case, from the testimony of PW3 Jagdish Pawar and his statement Ex. PW3/A it has been proved that in the month of December, 2009, his son Pradeep was at least 21 years of age and he was working as a mechanic. His age was not less than sixteen years. Although, PW3 Jagdish Pawar during his examination deposed, and so asserted by the police in the police report under section 173 of Cr.P.C., that Pradeep was mentally weak, but no evidence has been brought on record to prove that Pradeep was a person of unsound mind or he was mentally sick to the extent that he could not have made his statement before the police or the Court or he could not be produced before the Court as a witness.
46. The said Pradeep, the son of PW3 Jagdish Pawar, has neither been produced nor has been examined as a witness by the prosecution. From the record of the case and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses it also appears that even after his recovery on 19.12.2009 or subsequently he was neither examined by the IO nor his statement was recorded regarding the circumstances in which he had gone missing from his place of employment. He has not even been cited as a prosecution witness.
47. The prosecution has not produced any witness who saw Pradeep being taken away by the accused, or any other person, by Sessions Case No. 36/14 Page No. 50 of 52 force or any deceitful means. Pradeep himself has not appeared before the court to say that he was removed from Delhi by the accused or his associate by force or any deceitful means. In these circumstances merely the fact that on 19.12.2009 at the Bai Ka Bagh, Pradeep was found on motorcycle with the accused is not sufficient to hold that the accused abducted Pradeep.
48. PW3 Jagdish Pawar during his examination has unequivocally stated that the cash in bag was with the police official which was not delivered to the accused; and further denied that at the Bai Ka Bagh, to complete the deal HC Islamuddin handed over bag containing cash (papers) to the accused. Further the prosecution has failed to prove by leading cogent evidence that it was the accused who was making ransom calls to PW3 Jagdish Pawar. In these circumstances the accused cannot be held guilty of minor offences of extortion or criminal intimidation.
49. To sum up, in the case in hand the prosecution has failed to prove that Pradeep was a person of unsound mind. The prosecution has also failed to prove that on 10.12.2009 or subsequently, the accused or his associate(s) forcefully compelled, or by any deceitful means induced Pradeep to go from Delhi. The prosecution has also failed to prove that it was accused Rahul Kumar Singh, who was giving instructions to PW3 Jagdish Pawar and was threatening him and was demanding money from him. Thus the prosecution has failed Sessions Case No. 36/14 Page No. 51 of 52 to discharge the burden and has failed to prove all the circumstances leading to irresistible conclusion that the accused has committed the offence charged against him. In these circumstances, benefit of doubt is given to accused Rahul Kumar Singh and he is acquitted of offence punishable under section 364A of the Indian Penal Code. Subject to compliance of the provisions under section 437A of Cr.P.C., Rahul Kumar Singh, son of Bhola Singh be set at his liberty. After compliance file be sent to records.
Pronounced in the open court (Manoj Kumar)
th
on 30 of May 2015 Additional Sessions Judge01
South District:Saket Courts:
New Delhi
Sessions Case No. 36/14 Page No. 52 of 52