Delhi District Court
State vs . 1 Kamal Goyal, on 8 September, 2010
IN THE COURT OF MANOJ JAIN:
SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS):
OUTER DISTRICT: ROHINI COURTS:
DELHI
SC No.13/2010
Unique ID No. 02404R0095822010
FIR No.23/2010
PS Begum Pur
u/s 363/344A/420/506/34 IPC
State Vs. 1 Kamal Goyal,
S/o Sudarshan Goyal,
R/o H. No. 96, Neelgiri
Apartments, Sector-9,
Rohini, New Delhi.
2 Vinay Mishra,
S/o Raj Narain,
R/o D-48, New Moti Nagar,
Karam Pura, New Delhi.
3 Dharmender Singh,
S/o Dhup Singh,
R/o Village Nandal,
PS Lakhan Mazra,
District Rohtak, Haryana.
Date of Institution: 11.05.10
Date of conclusion of Arguments: 07.09.10
Date of pronouncement of Judgment: 08.09.10
JUDGMENT
1 Hrithik Surekha was studying in G.D. Goenka Public School, Sector-22, Rohini, Delhi. On 22.01.2010, he left for his school in Corolla Car no. DL-8CJ-5167. It was being driven by their driver Senthil Kumar. At about 8.05 AM when Corolla Car reached near Agarsen College, it was waylaid. One Maruti Car FIR No. 23/10 PS Begum Pur Page 1 of 20 800 CC of white color bearing registration no. DL-3C-7789 overtook Corolla Car from behind and blocked Corolla. Two persons alighted down from that Maruti Car. One person was carrying a hammer-type object and banged the driver side window pane of Corolla Car and removed keys of Corolla Car. Other person forcibly lifted Hrithik Surekha and put him in Maruti Car. Driver was also told to tell Ravi Surekha (father of Hrithik) that his son had been kidnapped. Driver was having one mobile phone and when he tried to make call to Ravi Aggarwal, his mobile was snatched. There was one more person in that Maruti Car. Senthil Kumar chased said Maruti Car upto a short distance but taking advantage of fog, all the kidnappers were able to dodge and flee away. Senthil Kumar informed school officials about the incident. Ravi Aggarwal and his friend Jag Mohan reached at the spot. By that time, they had already received a call from kidnappers. They did not want any further involvement of police particularly keeping in mind the safety of Hrithik. Conversation between Ravi Aggarwal and kidnappers was intercepted. As per the case of prosecution, Ravi Aggarwal paid a sum of Rs. 1.5 crore as ransom and on 23.01.2010 by late evening, Hrithik was back unhurt and unscathed. Police, however, carried out investigation and learnt that accused Kamal Goyal and Vinay Mishra were employees of Jag Mohan and they had not reported for duties and even Jag Mohan who had conversed with the kidnappers earlier, felt that his employee Kamal Goyal was involved in the incident. Police raided house of accused Kamal Goyal and ransom amount of Rs. 1.46 crore was recovered. Accused Vinay Mishra was also apprehended. During investigation, accused Dharmender was also caught FIR No. 23/10 PS Begum Pur Page 2 of 20 and from his possession, part of the ransom amount was recovered. All the accused refused to participate in TIP. Voice samples of accused Kamal Goyal and Vinay Mishra were also obtained. After completing the investigation, all the accused persons were charge-sheeted u/s 363/364A/420/506/34 IPC.
2 Challan was received by Magisterial Court on 23.04.2010. It was received on allocation by this Court on 11.05.2010.
3 All the accused were charged u/s 120-B IPC and also u/s 364A r/w Section 120-B IPC vide order dated 15.05.2010. They all pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4 Prosecution was directed to adduce evidence and has examined thirteen witnesses viz PW1 Hrithik Surekha (abducted child), PW2 Senthil Kumar (driver of Ravi Aggarwal/eye witness), PW3 Ravi Aggarwal (father of Hrithik Surekha), PW4 Jag Mohan (friend of Ravi Aggarwal), PW5 HC Anand Prakash (duty officer), PW6 HC Raj Singh (MHCM), PW7 Jyotish Moharana (Nodal Officer Vodafone), PW8 Ct. Rambir Singh, PW9 Dr. C.P. Singh (forensic expert), PW10 ASI Ved Prakash (investigating officer), PW11 SI Sanjay Gade, PW12 Insp. C.L. Meena (SHO, PS Begum Pur) and PW13 Vishal Gaurav (Nodal Officer Airtel).
5 All the accused, in their respective statements recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. pleaded innocence and claimed that they have been falsely implicated.
FIR No. 23/10 PS Begum Pur Page 3 of 206 I have heard learned Addl. P.P. for the State and learned defence counsels and carefully perused the entire material available on record.
7 If the prosecution case is to be believed then there are two material witnesses who had seen the kidnappers. They are Hrithik Surekha (abducted child) and driver Senthil Kumar. As already noticed above, during investigation, application for holding of TIP of accused persons was moved but all the accused persons refused to participate in TIP claiming that they had been shown to the witnesses at PS. However, to the utter dismay of prosecution, neither Master Hrithik nor driver Senthil Kumar has supported the case of prosecution.
8 PW1 Hrithik Surekha entered into witness box on 01.06.2010. Several court questions were put to him before recording of his testimony in order to ascertain whether he was in a condition to make statement freely and voluntarily. Keeping in mind his young age, oath was not administered to him. He admitted that he was going to school in the car driven their driver Senthil Kumar. He deposed that that day also when he was on his way to school in car, one person, who was on foot, blocked the car and forcibly took the keys after breaking driver side window pane of their car. He further deposed that he was blind-folded and was put in some car and was taken to some place. He also deposed that he could not say as to how many persons were in that car. He deposed that he was kept in some room. He also claimed that he could not identify those persons as those persons were wearing some FIR No. 23/10 PS Begum Pur Page 4 of 20 cap with mask and, therefore, he could not see their faces. Since he was found resiling from his previous statement, he was cross-examined by the prosecution with the permission of the Court and in his such cross-examination, he admitted that window pane of their car was broken with the help of one hammer. He also admitted that there were two persons at that time and one had broken window pane and other had forcibly picked him up. He also admitted that mobile phone of driver was also taken away by those persons. He claimed that he used to be given food by those persons but neither he knew their names nor he heard their names. He also deposed that he was dropped back to his house by two persons and at that time also he was wearing a monkey cap and he was directed not to see them. He was shown all the accused persons but he failed to identify any of them.
9 PW2 Senthil Kumar has also not propped up the case of prosecution. He deposed that when they reached near school in front of Agarsen College, one car came from behind, overtook their car and then blocked their car from front. He further deposed that one person then broke the window of driver side with hammer upon which he became perplexed. He deposed that he did not know as to what happened thereafter and when he overcame his nervousness, he found Hrithik missing and he also noticed that his mobile was not there. He then went to school and informed reception and school officials informed father of Hrithik. He also deposed that he was having a Chinese mobile of dual Sim. He, however, categorically claimed that he could not identify that person who had broken window of their car. Court question FIR No. 23/10 PS Begum Pur Page 5 of 20 was also put to him and it was asked whether he could identify that person who had broken the window pane of their car and the other person who had kidnapped Hrithik and surprisingly he answered in affirmative but when it was asked whether such persons were present in the Court, he claimed that those persons were not present. On the other hand, he volunteered that he could identify those persons. Thus, he emphatically claimed that accused persons present in court were not those kidnappers. He nowhere claimed that accused persons were wearing any sort of mask. On the other hand, he definitely asserted that he could identify actual offenders. According to case of prosecution, mobile phone of Senthil Kumar, which had been looted away, was also recovered. Accordingly to police, the kidnappers had made ransom call by another mobile phone by using the Sim card of mobile of driver Senthil Kumar. Such mobile phone was also shown to the witness but astonishingly witness failed to identify his own mobile phone as well. He was also cross-examined by the prosecution with the permission of the Court but despite his exhaustive cross- examination, he failed to utter even a single word in favour of prosecution and failed to identify accused persons. He even denied that he had chased the Maruti car to some distance or that he could not catch them due to fog. He also denied that he had even tried to make any call to his employer when child was being kidnapped. He also deposed that he never identified accused persons during investigation.
10 Direct incriminating evidence was available only through the mouths of Hrithik Surekha and driver Senthil Kumar and in view of my aforesaid discussion, it becomes FIR No. 23/10 PS Begum Pur Page 6 of 20 evident that such direct evidence virtually evaporates in air.
11 Learned Addl. P.P. has, however, contended that in such type of serious matters, public persons rarely come forward and depose truthfully. They are always under fear and prosecution case cannot be discarded simply due to hostile testimony of such witnesses. She has argued that there are various other material circumstances which clearly go in favour of prosecution and show complicity of accused persons. She has contended that accused persons had refused to participate in TIP during investigation. She has also contended that during investigation, entire ransom money was recovered from the possession of accused persons. She has also contended that voice samples of accused Vinay Mishra and Kamal Goyal were obtained and those were found matched with the intercepted voice and all these facts clearly reveal involvement of accused persons.
12 Learned defence counsels have, on the other hand, contended that even above mentioned circumstances do not stand proved. Sh. Pradeep Rana has drawn my attention towards the testimony of PW3 Ravi Aggarwal and of PW4 Jag Mohan and has contended that from their testimony, it becomes very much apparent that alleged ransom money had already been recovered by the police from somewhere on 23.01.2010 and was illegally and unlawfully planted in order to implicate the accused persons. It has also been argued that there is big question mark over the authenticity of specimen voice sample as the alleged two public persons, in whose presence such samples were taken, have turned hostile and FIR No. 23/10 PS Begum Pur Page 7 of 20 have deposed totally to the contrary. He has also contended that even intercepted version has not been appropriately proved and nobody knows as to in whose hand such transcript was. He has also argued that recovery of alleged hammer, toy pistol and other incriminating articles is highly doubtful and planted and, therefore, not worthy of any credence. Sh. K.M. Dwivedi, counsel for accused Vinay Mishra has supported the contentions of Sh. Rana.
13 Sh. Pradeep Singh, counsel for accused Dharmender has vehemently contended that as far as accused Dharmender is concerned, there is nothing against him. It has been claimed that even as per case of prosecution, he was not the one who had talked to Ravi Aggarwal or Jag Mohan on telephone. Neither his voice sample was ever taken nor does he stand connected anyway. It has been argued that a sum of Rs. 1.40 lac has been planted upon him and even the manner in which said amount had been recovered smacks of malafide.
14 I have seen the testimony of PW3 Ravi Aggarwal as well as of PW4 Jag Mohan. It is not clear as to when Ravi Aggarwal had received first call from the alleged kidnappers. PW12 Insp. C.L. Meena was SHO of PS Begum Pur at the relevant time and he had also reached at the spot at 9.00 AM. He also deposed that in no time Ravi Aggarwal and Jag Mohan also reached there and they did not want police to be involved much in the matter as they apprehended danger to the life of Hrithik. PW10 ASI Ved Prakash had been entrusted with the investigation and he had reached at the spot immediately. He has also deposed that Ravi Aggarwal had come at the spot FIR No. 23/10 PS Begum Pur Page 8 of 20 along with his friend Jag Mohan at 9.30 AM and Ravi Aggarwal and Jag Mohan told the police that they were in touch with the kidnappers and they told police that they were receiving calls from the mobile phone of driver Senthil. Thus, by 9.30 AM or so, Ravi Aggarwal had already received calls from the alleged kidnappers. However, PW3 Ravi Aggarwal has something else to say. According to him, he reached the spot and called driver and then he returned back to his house and informed his family members about the kidnapping incident and they remained silent for few hours. He deposed that after 2-3 hours, call was received on his wife's mobile. This was then, naturally, first call from the side of kidnappers and the caller had told them not to inform the police. This does not go hand in hand with police version. Moreover, according to Ravi Aggarwal, he had received information regarding kidnapping at 8.15 am on his mobile and call was from some unknown number. This is also confusing as according to clear case of police, call had been made from mobile number of driver and not from any unknown person. PW3 Ravi Aggarwal has further deposed that initially kidnappers had demanded Rs. 2 crores as ransom and negotiations were finalized for Rs. 1.50 crores. He also deposed that he used to speak with one man and he was instructed by the kidnappers to keep money in car and to leave the car at Anand Vihar Gate, Pitam Pura and kidnappers had assured that as soon as money was left by them in said manner, their son would be released. He further deposed that on 23.01.2010 at about 9.00 PM -10.00 PM he along with his wife reached at the spot i.e. Anand Vihar, Pitam Pura in santro car and ransom money was kept in two thailies and he left the santro car as per instructions of kidnappers and keys and FIR No. 23/10 PS Begum Pur Page 9 of 20 money were inside the car and within half an hour his son Hrithik came back. He also deposed that later on he was informed by police that money was recovered from the accused persons. Similarly, PW4 Jag Mohan has deposed that negotiations took place and ransom of Rs. 1.5 crore was paid around 10.00 PM and PW3 Ravi Aggarwal returned back after leaving the money at the place told by the kidnappers and within 10 minutes Hrithik had returned to the house. He further deposed that after half an hour, police also visited the house of Ravi Aggarwal and told them that police had already recovered the money and accused persons have also been apprehended.
15 Two things are tremendously imperative. Firstly, according to police, police had nabbed accused Kamal Goyal and Vinay Mishra only on the basis of lead given by Jag Mohan. Jag Mohan had conversation with the kidnappers and he felt that one of his employees Kamal Goyal was one of such kidnappers and he identified him on the basis of his peculiar style of using word "jo ki". Secondly, as per Jag Mohan as well as Ravi Aggarwal, police had met them same day Hrithik had returned i.e. on 23.01.2010 and told them immediately that accused persons had been apprehended and the ransom money had also been recovered. Both these points are crucial points.
16 Jag Mohan, when entered into witness box, did not utter regarding typical conversational style of one such kidnapper. On the other, since he was not coming up with complete facts, he was cross-examined by the prosecution FIR No. 23/10 PS Begum Pur Page 10 of 20 with the permission of the Court and even in his such cross- examination, he remained adamant and deposed that he never stated before the police that during conversation with kidnappers, he heard words "jo ki' and got suspicious about the involvement of his one employee Kamal Goyal who was in the habit of using those words. He was confronted with his previous statement but he claimed that he never made any such statement before the police.
17 Regarding recovery of ransom amount, as per case of prosecution, amount given as ransom was recovered on 24.01.2010. I have seen the testimony of PW10 ASI Ved Prakash as well of PW12 Insp. C.L. Meena, SHO PS Begum Pur. According to PW10 ASI Ved Prakash, they had reached at the house of accused Kamal Goyal on 24.01.2010 at about 2.00- 2.20 PM and a sum of Rs. 1.46 crore was recovered from his house. Seizure memo in this regard has been proved as Ex.PW10/G. This version of PW10 ASI Ved Prakash is in direct contrast with the material public witnesses including driver Senthil Kumar. According to police, ransom amount was recovered on 24.01.2010 whereas according to public witnesses, police had told them that on 23.01.2010 itself accused persons had been apprehended and ransom money had also been recovered. According to defence counsels, actual kidnappers were let off and the ransom money has been planted upon accused. Be that at it may, fact remains that recovery of ransom amount from the conscious possession of accused Kamal Goyal becomes doubtful in view of aforesaid material contradiction about the date of recovery.
FIR No. 23/10 PS Begum Pur Page 11 of 2018 As far as accused Kamal Goyal and Vinay Mishra are concerned, prosecution is heavily relying upon the report of FSL. It has been argued by learned Prosecutor that report Ex. PW9/A clearly indicates that voice samples of these two accused matched with the intercepted conversation and this fact itself indicates that both accused persons were the actual kidnappers.
19 Tape recorded conversation is admissible provided that the conversation is relevant to the matters in issue, that there is identification of the voice and that the accuracy of the conversation is proved by eliminating the possibility of erasing the tape record. A contemporaneous tape record of a relevant conversation is a relevant fact and is admissible under S. 8. It is res gestae. The conversation is therefore a relevant fact and is admissible under S. 7. Like any document, the tape record itself is primary and direct evidence admissible of what has been said and picked up by the receiver. In S. PRATAP SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB, AIR 1964 SC 72, Apex Court considered the issue and clearly propounded that tape recorded talks are admissible in evidence.
20 As regards the identification of such recorded voice, proper identification of such voice is a sine qua non for the use of such tape recording, therefore, the time and place and accuracy of the recording must be proved by a competent witness and the voices must be properly identified. It is also required to be established that such conversation was appropriately recorded and secured and sealed immediately leaving no chance of tempering. It is known fact that tape FIR No. 23/10 PS Begum Pur Page 12 of 20 recorded conversation can be erased with ease by subsequent recording and insertion could be superimposed. Voice of the speaker must be duly identified by the maker of the record or by others who recognize his voice. Every possibility of tempering with or erasure of a part of a tape recorded statement must be ruled out otherwise it may render the said statement out of context and, therefore, inadmissible. Ultimately, if in a particular case, there is a well grounded suspicion not even say proof, that the tape recording has been tampered with that would be a good ground for the court to discount wholly its evidentiary value. The importance of having a transcript of the tape-recorded conversation cannot be under estimated because the same ensures that the recording was not tampered subsequently.
21 In the case of RAKESH BISHT V. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 2007 CRI.L.J. 1530 DELHI, it has been held that accused cannot be compelled to give his voice sample during investigation and if matter is before court then court can direct to give voice sample only for identity purpose and not for the purpose of any inculpatory statement. It has been observed as under:-
"The accused, at the stage of investigation, cannot be compelled to give his voice sample just as he cannot be compelled to undergo a test identification parade. It is for him to give or not to give his voice sample in the course of investigation and the Court cannot, during investigation, direct the accused to give his voice sample."
FIR No. 23/10 PS Begum Pur Page 13 of 2022 I have seen the report Ex. PW9/A and also seen the testimony of PW9 Dr. C.P. Singh. However, there is one prime aspect of the case which creates a doubt with respect to the taking of specimen voice samples of itself. As per prosecution case, during investigation, police custody of accused Kamal Goyal and Vinay Mishra was taken. Application was moved before learned MM on 01.02.2010 and police custody was sought for recovery of balance amount, interrogation, recovery of original pistol, verification of call details, recovery of empty gunny bags and Sim cards. Nowhere was it revealed by the investigating agency that police custody was also required for taking voice samples of these two accused? Undoubtedly, investigation is the exclusive domain of police and Courts are not supposed to interfere. It is also settled law that for taking such specimen voice sample, Court has no power to give any direction but in order to show complete transparency, such vital fact should have been, at least brought to the notice of the Court.
23 Moreover, according to prosecution, such voice samples were taken by police on 02.02.2010 in the presence of two independent public persons, namely, Madan Sindhu and Charanjeet. Surprisingly, these two persons were not even cited as witnesses and, therefore, they both were called as court witnesses. However, they both have also not supported the case of prosecution. They have rather deposed that on 02.02.2010, some police officials had taken lift from them and they made further request to drop them at Rohini Court and they were made to wait for some time and they were asked to come inside one room. They claimed that they both were FIR No. 23/10 PS Begum Pur Page 14 of 20 called one by one and were given one paper and were asked to read out. They both categorically denied that accused Kamal Goyal and Vinay Mishra were with them or that police had taken voice samples of these two accused in their presence. Thus, taking of specimen voice samples also becomes highly uncertain.
24 Moreover, police was already having CD containing intercepted conversation and it is not explained as to why intercepted conversation and specimen voice samples were not sent to FSL immediately. It was during trial of the case, prosecution moved an application praying therein that such CDs be sent to FSL. This could have been done during investigational stage and there was no requirement of seeking any permission from the Court either but for totally unjustified and unexplained reasons, CDs were not sent to FSL immediately and were received by FSL on 02.07.2010. Thus, chances of tempering cannot be ruled out. Moreover, during trial such CDs were not played before Ravi Aggarwal or for that matter before Jag Mohan, at least they should have stated that such conversation was containing their voice as well. They should have identified their voices if not of accused and should have also claimed that conversation was correct and had actually taken place. Nothing of that sort is before me.
25 In the present case, as already noticed above, investigating agency did not demonstrate essential transparency. It was concealed from the Court whether any voice sample was required to be taken, what to talk of seeking any permission. Secondly, even as per the testimony of PW12 FIR No. 23/10 PS Begum Pur Page 15 of 20 Insp. C.L. Meena who had moved the application seeking police custody of the accused persons, no notice was served upon the accused persons to the effect that their voice samples were required to be taken. Thus, element of voluntary giving voice sample is found to be lacking. As already noticed above, there is big question mark over the authenticity of specimen voice sample as public witnesses, in whose presence such voice samples were taken, have failed to support the case of prosecution at all. As already noticed above, such intercepted conversation was not played before Ravi Aggarwal or Jag Mohan. It should have been got confirmed from them that such conversation contained their voices to say the least. CDs were called from the malkhana before pronouncement and same were run on the computer and contents were heard. Admittedly, same is found to be as per transcript but that per se is not suffice as specimen voice samples of accused have not been proved in view of the hostile testimony of public witnesses. Manner of taking voice sample was also not legitimate one. CDR has been proved by the concerned service provider but such CDR does not serve real purpose. Moreover, even if I give any weightage to such intercepted conversation, it can, at best, serve only corroborative purpose and has to be read in conjunction with other substantive evidence which is missing in the instant case.
26 In the case of Dwijadas Banerjee and Pritimoy Panda @ Pitu Panda Vs. State of West Bengal 2005 CriLJ 3151, Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta has held that during the stage of investigation, accused has right to keep silence and FIR No. 23/10 PS Begum Pur Page 16 of 20 he cannot be compelled to break his silence. It has also been held that power of comparison of voice lies with Court and such power of comparison cannot be exercised by investigating officer during stage of investigation even if there is an order of the Court as Magistrate himself has no any such power to direct the investigating officer in this regard. And if that is so, such voice samples are liable to be excluded from the realm of discussion.
27 As regards accused Dharmender, case is further frail against him as he is not one of those persons who had allegedly conversed with Ravi Aggarwal or Jag Mohan. He has been apprehended from Rohtak Bus Stand. PW10 ASI Ved Prakash had gone to Rohtak twice i.e. on 26.01.2010 and 27.01.2010 but could not meet him. But on 28.01.2010 he made another call to accused Dharmender and asked him to meet at Rohtak Bus Stand on the pretext that he was carrying one packet containing money which was required to be handed over to him as per instructions of Vinay Mishra. When on 28.01.2010, accused Dharmender was met, he was nabbed and he then disclosed that part of ransom money i.e. Rs. 1.40 lac had been kept by him at his house at Village Nandal, PS Lakhan Majra, Rohtak. Then police went to his house and recovered aforesaid amount. According to his cross- examination, police party had gone to Rohtak on 26.01.2010 in two Qualis. No intimation was given to local PS of Rohtak. Call details pertaining to mobile of ASI Ved Prakash have not been placed on record which would have suggested that he had, in fact, contacted accused Dharmender on his mobile on those three relevant dates and CDR would have also reflected his FIR No. 23/10 PS Begum Pur Page 17 of 20 location. There is no departure entry showing departure of police team on 26.01.2010, 27.01.2010 and 28.01.2010. Police team had gone in private Qualis and police does not know the registration number of these vehicles. Nobody knows as to who had made payment for using such Qualis. No police official prayed for any reimbursement. On 28.01.2010 also police had gone to Rohtak in one private Alto car if ASI Ved Prakash is to be believed. According to ASI Ved Prakash, it belonged to one advocate. It also becomes evident that on 28.01.2010 also no intimation was left with local PS of Rohtak. No public person or sarpanch or any other person of Nandal Village was asked to join the investigation. Undoubtedly, independent witnesses rarely come forward but it was expected that before taking search of the house of accused Dharmender, police would have at least made formal request but nothing of that sort has been done. There is no explanation as to why private vehicles were used and as to why police does not even know registration number of those vehicles and, therefore, recovery of part of ransom money from accused Dharmender and his alleged arrest from Rohtak becomes little bit doubtful.
28 Moreover, as per testimony of Ravi Aggarwal and Jag Mohan, ransom money had already been recovered on 23.01.2010 which spells doom for prosecution case. Even otherwise, there was no special identification mark on notes whereby it could have been said with certainty that those were part of ransom money. Fortunately, none of accused has staked claim over such money. Their stand is that money had been planted and nothing had been recovered from them.
FIR No. 23/10 PS Begum Pur Page 18 of 2029 In view of my foregoing discussion, it becomes very much perceptible that prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond shadow of doubt. Hostile testimony of material public witnesses has created a grave distrust in the case of prosecution and even the recovery of ransom money from the possession of accused becomes extremely suspicious. Incident was very shocking. Any person would have screamed for justice in case his child is kidnapped in broad- day light on way to school. Naturally, first concern has to be the safety of child. Well-wishers of Hrithik did not involve police. Probably they were right. They had means to pay also. I would say that they were fortunate as well as they got back their child and money in a whisker. So far so good. But the approach cannot and should not be individualistic. Witnesses concerned owe duty to society as well. Such offence is offence against state. Their job is not limited to getting back the child and money and then to relax back. Their endeavour should be to see that the offenders are brought to books and are punished adequately. Yell for justice becomes to hell with justice when one gets, in no time, what one wanted from the police or from the court in legal battle. Courts can deliver justice with their support only and not otherwise. Witnesses are eyes and ears of Justice and they cannot afford to turn blind and deaf. They had something else to offer before the police. There is no qualm that even the version recorded by the police can be false and flawed. But judgment has to be on the basis of what they have deposed before the court and not what they had claimed before the police. Be that as it may, in criminal case, prosecution is duty bound to prove its case beyond shadow of doubt and to the hilt. There is no room for FIR No. 23/10 PS Begum Pur Page 19 of 20 any uncertainty. Testimony of public witnesses has, whereas, created number of doubts and it is unfeasible to read their testimony in harmony with the testimony of police officials. Distance between 'might be true' to 'must be true' stands not covered. Resultantly, all the accused are given benefit of doubt and acquitted of all the charges levelled against them in the present case.
30 All the accused be released from jail forthwith if not required in any other case.
31 Superdarinama is cancelled.
32 File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court On this 08th day of Sept. 2010.
(MANOJ JAIN) ASJ/Special Judge (NDPS) Outer District: Rohini Courts: Delhi FIR No. 23/10 PS Begum Pur Page 20 of 20