Delhi District Court
State vs . on 16 October, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJNISH BHATNAGAR,
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE II, OUTER DISTRICT
ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
IN RE : Sessions Case No. : 79/11
FIR No. : 918/04
P.S. : Uttam Nagar
U/s : 363/364 A /212/347/34 IPC
Date of registration : 18052005
Reserved for Judgment on: 15092012
Judgment Announced on : 16102012
State
Vs.
1. Arshad @ Aman S/o Tajjammul Beg,
R/o Village Mandawar, District Bijnore, U.P.
2. Sajid Abbas S/o Mattizuddin
R/o Pushkarpur, Distt. Nalwari (Assam)
3. Madhukar Singh S/o Suresh Prasad
R/o Jagolia, P.S. Madhubani, District Motihari, Bihar.
4. Durga Singh S/o Late Sh. Raj Nandan Singh
R/o Village Dumaghat, Choube Toda,
P.S. Madhuban, Distt. East Champaran, Bihar.
5. Shiv Shankar S/o Bani Bhagat
R/o Village Machaha, P.S. Madhuban,
District Madhuban, Bihar. (PROCLAIMED OFFENDER)
6. Sanjay Singh S/o Adhar Singh
R/o Village Darmaha, District Motihari,
Bihar. (PROCLAIMED OFFENDER)
Sessions Case No. : 79/11 Page 1 of 50
2
JUDGMENT
1. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 18102004, complainant Dilshad S/o Karim Beg lodged a missing report of his son Naushad at police station Uttam Nagar which was recorded vide DD No. 15 B dated 18102004. As per the complainant his son Naushad, age 6 years was missing since 17102004 from 5:30 p.m. On 22102004, parents of Naushad suspected that somebody had taken away their son after enticing him. Thereafter ASI Mamur Khan made his endorsement on the said DD and got the present case registered. During investigation ASI Mamur Khan recorded the statements of the parents of Nashad regarding kidnapping of their son. On 23102004, the investigation of the case was handed over to SI Ramesh Singh. During investigation complainant Dilshad told SI Ramesh Singh that he had received a ransom call on his mobile phone No. 9810490975 from mobile phone No. 9835465800. SI Ramesh Singh collected the details of the said phone number and inquired about the ownership of the same. On inquiry, according to the the ID the said phone number was found to be that of one Sanjay Singh resident of Bihar. SI got done the verification of the ID i.e Sessions Case No. : 79/11 Page 2 of 50 3 copy of driving licence issued from Mujjaffar Pur Bihar but the licence was found to be forged. SI Ramesh Singh tried to search the kidnapped child on the basis of the call details of said mobile phones but all in vain.
2. Thereafter on 16112004, the instant case was transferred to the crime branch and the investigation of the case was conducted by SI Harbir Singh. During investigation accused Arsad @ Aman, Bhatija of the complainant was also found missing for many days and on inquiry he was found to have gone to Motihari Bihar with his associates Sanjay and John. Thereafter a raid was conducted with the help of Bihar Police in Bihar at village Jagoliya at the house of accused Madhukar Singh S/o Suresh Prasad Singh and from where huge quantity of arms and ammunition were recovered. With regard to the said recovery separate FIR No. 146/04 dated 19112004 U/s 25 (1B) A 26, 35 Arms Act was registered at PS Madhuban, Bihar. The kidnapped child Naushad son of complainant Dilshad Begh was also recovered from the said house. Thereafter SI Harbir Singh received the kidnapped child vide receipt and also received the copy of said FIR. Then he brought the recovered child at Delhi and also took the transit remand of the said accused persons and Sessions Case No. : 79/11 Page 3 of 50 4 brought them to Delhi. Disclosure statement of the said accused persons were recorded; they were produced before the Court and their police custody remand was taken. The said accused persons also disclosed about the involvement of their associates Durga Singh, Shiv Shankar and Sanjay in the kidnapping.
3. During investigation statement of kidnapped child Naushad was got recorded U/s 164 Cr.P.C who alleged in his statement that accused Arsad @ Aman with his two associates whose names were Sanjay and John made him drink Fanta and after drinking the same be became unconscious and then he was taken to Bihar where he was confined. He further alleged that the accused persons used to make him talk to his parents on the gun point and they used to tell him that they would take money from his parents and would kill him.
4. After completion of investigation accused were charge sheeted U/s 363/364 A/ 212 /120 B/34 IPC. Final report U/s 173 Cr.P.C. was prepared and was filed in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate who after completing all the formalities committed the case to the court of sessions for trial.
5. On 13072005, a charge U/s 363/364 A/212/347/34 IPC was framed against accused Arshad @ Aman, Sajid Abbas Sessions Case No. : 79/11 Page 4 of 50 5 @ John and Madhukar Singh to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and on 02082007 charge U/s 363/364A/212/347/34 IPC was also framed against accused Durga Singh to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. In order to prove the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses.
7. PW 1 Master Naushad is the child who was kidnapped, PW 2 Dilshad Beg is his father and PW 3 Smt. Nargis Begum is the mother. They are material witnesses so I will discuss their testimonies in the later part of the judgment.
8. PW 4 ASI Ramesh Chand deposed that on 18102004, he was posted at PS Uttam Nagar. On that day he received copy of DD No. 15 B Ex. PW 4/A by the duty officer in connection of missing of Naushad aged about 6 years which was got lodged by Dilshad. He further deposed that he met the father of Naushad and interrogated him.
9. He further deposed that he got the massage flashed to the Senior police officers of India regarding missing of Naushad from 17102004. He proved the copy of the massage as Ex. PW 4/B. He also got prepared the missing person form on 21102004. He proved the copy of the same as Ex. PW 4/C. He Sessions Case No. : 79/11 Page 5 of 50 6 further deposed that he made search of Master Naushad but no clue came forward and on 22102004, he handed over the aforesaid missing report to ASI Mamoor Khan as directed by the SHO.
10. He further deposed that on 24102004, he joined the investigation with SI Ramesh, ASI Lallan Prasad, H.C Tapeshwar and 23 other constables and they all had gone to Muzaffar Pur (Bihar) in search of missing Naushad and they only conducted raid in Muzaffar Pur but no clue come forward. Thereafter they returned at PS Uttam Nagar probably on 1112004 again said 31102004. Thereafter he did not join the investigation of this case.
11. PW 5 ASI Bal Kishan is the duty officer. He recorded the FIR of the instant case. He proved on record the carbon copy of the FIR as Ex. PW 5/A. He also made his endorsement on the rukka and proved the same as Ex. PW 5/B. He also identified the handwriting of Ct. Krishan Kumar on DD No. 15B, true copy of which is already exhibited as Ex. PW 4/A.
12. PW 6 H.C. Suresh Chand deposed that on 30112004, he was posted at PS Crime Branch, Chanakya Puri and on that day on the direction of SI Harbir Singh he collected the exhibits Sessions Case No. : 79/11 Page 6 of 50 7 of this case from PS Uttam Nagar in sealed condition alongwith sample seal and FSL form vide RC No. 316/21 and deposited the same with FSL Rohini. After depositing the same, he handed over the copy of acknowledgment to MHC(M) of PS Uttam Nagar.
13. PW 7 H.C. Banwari Lal is the MHC(M). He deposed about the depositing of exhibits of the instant case in the malkaha by SI Harbir Singh on 24112004 and the relevant entry made by him in register No. 19 in this regard. He proved on record the entry made by him at serial No. 3386 in register No. 19 as Ex. PW 7/A. He further deposed that on 30112004, the exhibits of this case were deposited in FSL Rohini through HC Suresh Chand vide RC No. 316/04. He proved the copy of the same as Ex. PW 7/B. He further deposed that after depositing the exhibits HC Suresh handed over him a copy of acknowledgment and he proved the same as Ex. PW 7/C.
14. PW 8 is SI Mamur Khan (Retd.) who on 22102004, was posted as ASI at PS Uttam Nagar. He deposed that copy of DD No. 15 B regarding missing of Master Naushad was handed over to him by HC Ramesh on the direction of the then SHO, PS Uttam Nagar. He further deposed that he prepared the rukka Ex. PW 8/A on the basis of which the present case was registered Sessions Case No. : 79/11 Page 7 of 50 8 U/s 363 IPC. He further deposed that he went to the house of the complainant, collected the photo of missing child, got issued notice of hue and cry, sent message at missing person squad, kotwali, Delhi as well as police stations in the NCR. He further deposed that on the next day i.e. on 23102004, the investigation was transferred to SI Harbir Singh of Crime Branch, from him.
15. PW 9 Ct. Rajbir Singh deposed that on 17112004, he was posted in ISC /Crime Brnach Chanakaya Puri, New Delhi and on that day he joined the investigation of this case with IO SI Harbir Singh. PW 9 remained associated with the IO SI Harbir Singh during the investigation. He narrated about the sequence of investigation done by the IO in his presence. In his presence also the accused persons namely Arshad @ Aman, Sajid @ Jone and Madhukar Singh were arrested and their personal search were taken. He proved on record the arrest memo of accused Arshad @ Aman as Ex. PW 9/A; arrest memo of accused Sajid @ Jone as Ex. PW 9/B and arrest memo of accused Madhukar Singh as Ex. PW 9/C. He also proved on record the personal search memo of accused Arshad as Ex. PW 9/D; personal search memo of accused Sajid @ Jone as Ex. PW 9/E and personal search memo of accused Madhukar as Ex. PW 9/F. Disclosure Sessions Case No. : 79/11 Page 8 of 50 9 statements of the said accused persons were also recorded in the presence of PW 9. He proved on record the disclosure statement of accused Arshad as Ex. PW 9/G; disclosure statement of accused Sajid as Ex. PW 9/H and disclosure statement of accused Madhukar as Ex. PW 9/J. He identified the cassette already exhibited as P1 which was handed over to the IO by the complainant on 24112004.
16. PW 10 Sh. Kamaljeet Arora is the Ld. ASJ, Dwarka Courts, Delhi. He recorded the statement of witness Naushad Beg U/s 164 Cr.P.C. He proved the same as Ex. PW 10/A. He also proved on record the certification given by him with regard to the correctness of the said statement as Ex. PW 10/B. He also proved on record the application moved by the IO for obtaining the copy of the statement as Ex. PW 10/C.
17. PW 11 H.C. Rajender Singh deposed that on 2822007, DD No. 10 was marked to ASI Dharambir Singh to their branch for necessary action. He joined the investigation with him and they left Delhi for District Motihari Bihar. He further deposed that on 01032007, after reaching there they went to Motihari Jail and found accused Durga Singh @ Kaka lodged in the jail there. He further deposed that accused Durga Singh @ Sessions Case No. : 79/11 Page 9 of 50 10 Kaka was interrogated by ASI Dharambir Singh and he was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW 11/A; his personal search was taken by IO vide memo Ex. PW 11/B and disclosure statement of accused Durga Singh Ex. PW 11/C was recorded regarding his involvement alongwith other accused persons in this case. He further deposed that IO collected the photocopy of the documents pertaining to accused Durga Singh in case FIR No. 95/06 i.e. Ex. PW 11/D (11 sheets) from police official i.e Sachidanand of PS Pagdi Dayal, District Motihari.
18. PW 12 is SI Dharambir who on 522007 was posted as ASI in ISC Cell Crime Brnach and to whom on the said date DD No. 10 Ex. PW 12/A was marked for necessary Action. PW 12 more or less deposed on the same lines as deposed by PW 11. PW 12 moved an application in the Court of Ld. ACMM Rohini for issuance of production warrant of accused Durga Singh @ Kaka from Motihari Jail. PW 12 alongwith PW 11 on 2822007, left for Motihari Jail Bihar and they reached there on 01032007 from where PW 12 arrested accused Durga Singh vide arrest memo Ex. PW 11/A, took his personal search vide memo Ex. PW 11/B and recorded his disclosure statement Ex. PW 11/C. PW 12 further deposed that he recorded the statement of SI Sessions Case No. : 79/11 Page 10 of 50 11 Sachidanand Paswan and HC Rajinder Singn U/s 161 Cr.P.C. Thereafter they came back to Delhi and on 742007 accused Durga Singh was produced in the court of Ld M.M., Rohini by Bihar Police. PW 12 moved an application for obtaining PC remand of accused Durga Singh but the same was not allowed by the Hon'ble Court and accused was sent to JC.
19. PW 13 Inspector Ramesh Singh is the initial IO of the case to whom on 24102004, the investigation of the present case was entrusted. He deposed that he alongwith the staff of PS Uttam Nagar left for Motihari in search of kidnapped child and to verify the mobile phone No. 9835465800 and on inquiry from the office of Singh Communication about the ownership of said mobile phone he came to know that the mobile phone was purchased in the name of one Sanjay Singh S/o Late Sh. R.D Singh R/o Gahaia Dhaka, East Champaran. He further deposed that thereafter he went to Patna in the office of Reliance company from where he obtained photocopy of subscriber enrollment form (two sheets). He tried to find any clue about the whereabout of kidnapped child but he did not find any clue there. Thereafter on 1112004, they came to Delhi and on 17112004, the investigation of the present case was transferred to crime Sessions Case No. : 79/11 Page 11 of 50 12 branch.
20. PW 14 is SI Madan Prasad Singh who on 19112004, was posted as SHO P.S Madhuban District, Motihari (Bihar). He assisted the IO SI Harbir Singh, ISC, Crime Branch and his team during investigation when on 19112004 they reached at P.S. Madhuban. PW 14 SI Madan Prasad alongwith IO SI Harbir Singh and his raiding team reached at village Jagoliya at the house of accused Madhukar Singh to conduct the raid. He deposed that they knocked the door of the house several times but none opened the door. He further deposed that he peeped through the window of he said house by switching on the torch which was with him and he found one male child present inside the said room and he was weeping at that time. On inquiry he told his name as Naushad Beg S/o Dilshad Beg and while weeping he also told that he was kidnapped by one Arshad, Sazid @ John and one Sanjay Singh from his house at Uttam Nagar, Delhi.
21. He further deposed that thereafter they broke open the door of the house and entered into the said room and recovered the said child along with accused Sazid from the toilet of the said house as accused Sazid had taken the child inside the toilet Sessions Case No. : 79/11 Page 12 of 50 13 after seeing them.
22. He further deposed that accused Sazid was apprehended by them and his formal search was taken by them and one single barrel rifle loaded was found in his possession. The same was unloaded by him and one .315 live round was taken out from the barrel of the rifle. He further deposed that he prepared the sketch of the rifle and round. He further deposed that there were two other accused persons namely Madhukar Singh and Arshand who were apprehended from the same house. From the possession of accused Madhukar Singh one country made pistol loaded was recovered. He prepared the sketch of the same. From the possession of accused Arshad one black colour double barrel rifle loaded was recovered. The same was unloaded by him and two live round were recovered from the barrel of the rifle. He prepared the sketch of the same. He further deposed that from the search of the house of accused Madhukar Singh two country made pistols and three live rounds were recovered. The arms and ammunitions mentioned above were sealed by him in separate pullanda and sealed with his seal and were taken into possession by preparing seizure memos. He further deposed that thereafter he prepared rukka and on the Sessions Case No. : 79/11 Page 13 of 50 14 basis of which the case FIR No. 146/04, U/s 25 (1B) A/26/35 Arms Act was registered at PS Madhuban.
23. He further deposed that he handed over the child Naushad Beg to SI Harbir Singh who prepared receiving receipt in this regard. PW 14 proved the same as Ex. PW 14/A. PW 14 further deposed that he handed over the photocopy of his statement i.e rukka Ex. PW 14/B, copy of seizure memo of arms and ammunition Ex. PW 14/C and photocopy of FIR Ex. PW 14/D to SI Harbir Singh.
24. PW 15 SI Sachidanand deposed that on 19112006, he was posted at PS Pakdi Dayal, District Motihari, Bihar. He apprehended accused Durga Singh @ Kaka in case FIR No. 95/06 U/s 364 A/414/379/34 IPC of PS Pakdi Dayal. He further deposed that during interrogation in that case, accused made disclosure statement regarding his involvement in the present case i.e FIR No. 918/04 of PS Uttam Nagar, Delhi U/s 363/364 A/212/34 IPC alongwith his other associates.
25. He further deposed that he recorded the disclosure statement of accused Durga Singh in that case. He informed to the police at PS Uttam Nagar, Delhi regarding the arrest of accused Durga Singh. ASI Dahrambir Singh alongwith his team Sessions Case No. : 79/11 Page 14 of 50 15 of crime branch, Delhi reached at PS Pakdi Dayal on 132007. He further deposed that he handed over the disclosure statement recorded by Sh. Krishan Murari Gupta the then SHO on 20112006 in that case and copy of FIR No. 95/06 is Ex. PW 11/D. He proved on record the photocopy of disclosure statement recorded by SH Krishan Muari Gupta the then SHO of PS Pakdi Dayal as Ex. PW 15/A.
26. PW 16 SI Harbir Singh is the IO of the case. He unfolded the sequence of investigation done by him. He proved on record his written request given by him to concerned SHO Madan Prasad of PS Madhubani as Ex. PW 16/A. He also proved on record the site plan of the place of recovery as Ex. PW 16/B; carbon copy of statement of Naushad U/s 164 Cr.P.C as Ex. PW 16/D; request vide which, transcript of the audio cassette were got received as Ex. PW 16/E and the audio script as already exhibit PW 16/E1. He also proved on record the result FSL as Ex. PW 16/F.
27. After the closing of the prosecution evidence statement of accused persons U/s 313 Cr.P.C were recorded and incriminating evidence was put to them. Accused persons denied the same and stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated. Sessions Case No. : 79/11 Page 15 of 50 16 No evidence in defence was led by the accused persons.
28. I have heard, Ld. APP for the State and the counsel for the accused persons and have also gone through the records of the case.
29. It is urged by the Ld. APP for the state that on the basis of the evidence recorded and the material available on record accused persons be convicted. It is further submitted by him that the statement of master Naushad who has been examined as PW 1 is believable and has been corroborated by his parents who have been examined as PW 2 and PW 3.
30. On the other hand, it is urged by the Ld. counsel for accused Durga Singh that he has been falsely implicated after arresting him from Motihari Jail and there is no evidence except the disclosure statement of the accused. It is further urged by him that even as per the case of the prosecution he was not present at the spot at the time of raid by the police. It is further urged that there is nothing on record to show that accused Durga Singh harassed; assaulted and extend threats to the child or made ransom call to his parents.
31. On the other hand, it is submitted by the counsel for other accused persons that there are major contradictions Sessions Case No. : 79/11 Page 16 of 50 17 between the testimony of the witnesses. It is further submitted that the victim child did not raise any alarm and he was voluntarily residing with Arshad. It is further urged that the child was not produced before the C.J.M. Bihar and there is nothing on record to prove that the child was handed over to the father of master Naushad in Bihar and this creates doubt in the case of the prosecution. It is further urged that medical examination of the child was conducted after a delay of six months and there is no explanation to the delay. It is further urged that as per the IO the cassette in which the voice of the alleged abductors was recorded was handed over by the father of the victim to him but no voice samples were taken. It is further urged that according to the prosecution a sum of Rs. 75 Lakh was demanded as ransom which is impossible looking into the status of the parties.
32. In rebuttal, Ld. APP has argued that it is not that the demanded ransom is always paid and there are bound to be some negotiations. So the contention of the Ld. defence counsel that a sum of Rs. 75 Lakh could not be demanded looking into the status of the complainant has no force in it.
33. In the instant case the most material witness is PW 1 Master Naushad who was kidnapped by the accused persons. Sessions Case No. : 79/11 Page 17 of 50 18 Before examination of this child witness the Ld. Predecessor of this Court after putting certain questions, satisfied himself that he can be examined and then proceeded to record his testimony.
34. PW 1 deposed that Arshand Bhaiya (accused Arshad) came to him while he was playing in the gali No. 7 and called him from the corner of the gali. He further deposed that he went up to him. Accused Arshad asked him whether he would like to come with him. So PW 1 had accompanied him as he was knowing him as his Bhiya. He further deposed that accused Arshad took him on the main road where he met his two friends namely Sanjay Bhaiya and John Bhaiya and they both were known to him. They had met him at the house of his Taya/Uncle. He further deposed that John Bhiya gave him one Fruti for drinking and Sanjay Bhiya gave him one tablet. He ate the tablet with Fruti.
35. He further deposed that accused Arshad was holding his hand and they were walking on the road. After some time he felt sleepy and he slept. When he regained his consciousness, he found himself in a running train. He further deposed that in the train Sanjay Bhiya gave him one Fruti which he drank. He further deposed that he again fell asleep in the train and when he Sessions Case No. : 79/11 Page 18 of 50 19 again regained consciousness, he was found in the house of one Kakaji where he was kept for two days. He further deposed that he remained there in sleepy condition and thereafter he was kept in a locked rook in the house of one Madhukar Bhiya. He further deposed that in the room of Madhukar Bhaiya, Sanjay Bhiya, John Bhiya, Arshad and Shiv Shankar and two and three other persons used to give him beatings.
36. He further deposed that they used to say that if his father would not pay the money then they would kill him. He further deposed that they also made him talk to his father on two occasions. He further deposed that once they had put a revolver on his head and threatened that in case his father would not fulfill their demand then they would kill him. He further deposed that when at the house of Madhukar police came, he locked him in another room and police personnel talked to him through a window where he was locked.
37. He further deposed that the police took him out of the room and caught Madhukar, Arshad @ Aman and John. He further deposed that his father was standing outside the house. He was taken to the police station where his statement was recorded and he was medically examined. The witness had Sessions Case No. : 79/11 Page 19 of 50 20 correctly identified accused Arshad, Kakaji, accused John Bhiya and Madhukar Bhiya.
38. This witness was cross examined and in his cross examination he stated that accused Arshad is his cousin / son of his Tau. He further stated in his cross examination that there were many public persons in the train and he did not find any difficulty in going to the urinal in the train because he had not gone into the toilet of the train because he was unconscious. He further stated in his cross examination that he cannot tell as to how many rooms were constructed in the house of Kakaji but accused Arshad, John, Sanjay and Kakaji and his wife alongwith two children were there. He further stated that the name of those children were Chunnu and Chandan. He further stated that he had talked to those children twice but he did not remember if he had told to them that he had been kidnapped.
39. He further stated that the accused used to take him one or two Km. from the house of Madhukar for making a telephone call to his parents. They used to take him on a bike and Kakaji used to drive the bike. He further stated that he did not raise any alarm about his kidnapping while going on motorcycle for making a call at the phone booth. He denied the suggestion that Sessions Case No. : 79/11 Page 20 of 50 21 he had not raised any alarm because nothing had happened with him.
40. He further stated in his cross examination that police had come at around 5 a.m and at that time he was not sleeping but accused John Bhiya was sleeping He further stated that police had inquired from him about his name and address from the window and he met his father who was sitting in the vehicle. He further stated that accused Arshad was caught by the police. He further stated that he alongwith his father and 12 police personnel came to Delhi by train. He further stated that he was not medically examined there though he was taken to nearby police station. He specifically denied that no discussion had taken place between him and his father or any other person about what he had to depose in the Court. He denied the suggestion that he had been tutored.
41. The other relevant witness is PW 2 Dilshad Beg who isthe father of the abducted child. He deposed that on 17102004, at about 5:30 p.m his son Naushad was playing in the street from where he was found missing. On 18102004, at about 10 a.m he made a call to the police and reported the matter. He searched his child for 23 days but the child could Sessions Case No. : 79/11 Page 21 of 50 22 not be found. On 22102004, at about 3:00 p.m he received a call on his mobile number 9810490975 from mobile number 9835465800 and the caller told him that the child Naushad was with them and the caller asked him to arrange money and the caller also asked him not to disclose anything to the police.
42. He further deposed that on the same day at about 4 / 4:30 p.m he again received a call from the same number and the caller was speaking in Bihari dialect and asked for ransom of Rs. 75 Lakh which was reduced to Rs. 70 Lakh. He further deposed that after one week he again received a call from the same number and he was made to talk to his son and he asked his son as to who had taken him, on this one person took phone from his son and abused him and again demanded Rs. 70 Lakh otherwise, they would kill his son. He further deposed that on the same day in the evening he again received a call from the same number and he told them that he cannot pay such a huge amount and can only pay Rs. 50 to 70,000/.
43. He further deposed that the caller abused him and said that they had spent Rs. 2 lakh to bring the child to the place of hiding and since the PW 2 was requesting to pay Rs. 60 to 70,000/ he did not want his child back. He further deposed that Sessions Case No. : 79/11 Page 22 of 50 23 he recorded the said conversation in tape and handed over the same to the SHO. He further deposed that after few days he again received a call and caller asked him as to whether he had arranged the money or not. He further deposed that few days before his went missing, he had landed Rs. 3000/ to Arshad his nephew. He further deposed that when he demanded his money back from Arshad, some altercation took place between him and Arshad and Arshad promised to return the amount in 23 days.
44. He further deposed that since the day his son went missing, accused Arshad was also not found at his house. He further deposed that on 15112004, on the festival of Id Arshad did not come to his house, as he used to come. So on 16112004, he went to the house of Arshad where the occupants told him that accused Arshad had left his contact number by writing the same on the wall and on the back side of the door. He further deposed that he noted down all the numbers and handed over to the police official Harbir Singh who had come to the house. He further deposed that the police told him that the number from which he was receiving the calls was from Bihar. He further deposed that on 17112004, he was called by the police at Chankya Puri and from there he alongwith Sessions Case No. : 79/11 Page 23 of 50 24 police team went to Bihar in a Pvt. Vehicle and reached Motihari district.
45. He further deposed that he had not disclosed to his wife that his son was kidnapped and the kidnappers were demanding money and only when his wife saw him in disturbed condition then he disclosed to her that her son had been kidnapped and the kidnappers are demanding money. He further deposed that once he received a call on his mobile from telephone number 9835233507 and the caller used abusive language and demanded money for the release of his son. He further deposed that at that time his wife was with him and the caller asked to hand over the phone to his wife. He handed over the phone to his wife and his wife was also abused by the caller and she was allwed to talk to her son Naushad and during the talk between his wife and son, her son said "Mammi Bachalo Nahi To Maar Denge aur ye paise inko de do".
46. He further deposed that his wife started crying and handed over the phone to him. He further deposed that all these discussions was taped by him and the tape was handed over toe the police. He further deposed that when in Bihar they went to Madhuban Thana, police personnel of local police station also Sessions Case No. : 79/11 Page 24 of 50 25 accompanied them and thereafter they went to village Jagoliya and they went to the house of Madhukar which was in the field and no other hosue was near his house. He further deposed that police had left him in a vehicle and police personnels from Bihar and Delhi raided the house of Madhukar. He further deposed that after some time his son was recovered from the house of Madhukar and he was handed over to him.
47. He further deposed that accused Madhukar alongwith accused Arshad and accused Sajid @ John were apprehended from the house and his son was recovered from their possession. He correctly identified all the accused persons. He further deposed that many illegal arms were also recovered from the house and accused persons which were taken into possession by the local police. He further deposed that his son had told him that Kakaji and Sanjay used to take him on motorcycle near the river for talking on telephone and his son was made to talk on the mobile by putting a revolver on his head. He further deposed that his son was handed over to him on 19112004 vide seizure memo Ex. PW 2/A. He further deposed that statement of his son was recorded by the magistrate on 24112004. He further deposed that he had handed over two audio cassette to the police Sessions Case No. : 79/11 Page 25 of 50 26 which was seized vide memo Ex. PW 2/C. Two audio cassette was identified by this witness which are Ex. P1 and P2. He further proved on record, the transcript of the conversation as Ex. PX3.
48. In his cross examination, he stated that he recorded the telephonic conversation of his own which was received by him between 22102004 to 1112004. He further stated that the FIR was registered on 23102004, in the morning and he denied the suggestion that he had not visited the police station on 22102004 and 23102004. He also denied the suggestion that he had not received any telephone call from the alleged kidnappers between 18102004 to 22102004, therefore this fact is not mentioned in the FIR.
49. He further stated that on 17102004, they had proceeded to Madhuban at about 8 p.m in a Govt. vehicle. He denied the suggestion that he had not accompanied the raiding party to conduct the raid at Madhuban on 17102004 and 18102004. He further stated in his cross examination that he had not told to the police about the tape recording of conversation up to 23112004 and only told this fact to the police on 24112004 by handing over two cassettes. Sessions Case No. : 79/11 Page 26 of 50 27
50. He denied the suggestion that he had manipulated the cassette or that he had not received any ransom call. He stated that he had not handed over the tape recorder to the IO. He further stated that he had not told to any one about the conversation with kidnappers except the police officials. He further stated that he could not tell the make of the cassette or the make of the recorder as the same were arranged by him from his friend. He further stated that the mobile phone in which he had recorded the conversation is Ben Q and the said phone was purchased by him for the purpose of recording and the same was purchased by him against bill.
51. PW 3 is Smt. Nargis Begum, mother of the kidnapped child. She deposed that on 17102004, at about 5 p.m her son Naushad was playing in the street from where he went missing. She further deposed that her son could not found and after some days her husband told her that he had received a telephone call on his mobile and the caller was demanding money for the release of their son.
52. She further deposed that one day the caller made a telephone call on the mobile of her husband and he asked her husband to hand over the phone to her as the caller wanted to Sessions Case No. : 79/11 Page 27 of 50 28 talk to her. She further deposed that the caller talked to her and then allowed her son to talk to her. She further deposed that her son was crying and saying that give the money whatever they were demanding and get him released from them. She further deposed that thereafter the caller took the phone from her son and did not allow her to complete the talk and the caller asked her to arrange the money otherwise her son would be killed.
53. She further deposed that the caller was abusing and threatening and said that if police is informed then her son would be killed. She further deposed that on 17112004, police official Harbir with other police personnel came to her house but she did not disclose anything to the police because she was afraid of the threats of the caller.
54. This witness was cross examined and in her cross examination on behalf of accused Arshad and Durga she stated that accused Arshad who is her nephew had taken Rs. 3000/ from her husband but no quarrel had taken place between them in her presence and there were only hot exchange of words.
55. She further admitted it to be as correct that those Rs. 3000/ had not been returned by the accused. She further stated that she came to know about the kidnapping of her child and Sessions Case No. : 79/11 Page 28 of 50 29 the demand of money when the caller wanted to talk with the mother of the child. She further stated that there was no tape recorder in the house but said she did not know what her husband used to record or not to record at the house.
56. The Ld counsel for accused Madhukar and Johan adopted the same cross examination.
57. Now these are the material witnesses who had talked about the kidnapping of the child ; demand of ransom and the threats extended by the kidnappers.
58. Accused Arshad @ Aman, Sajid Abbas @ John, Madhukar Singh and accused Durga Singh have been charged U/s 363 IPC r.w. Section 34 of IPC. Section 363 IPC reads as follows:
"363. Punishment for kidnapping. Whoever kidnaps any person from [India] or from lawful guardianship, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
59. Now the points for consideration are : MISSING OF THE CHILD : According to the prosecution the child Naushad was found missing on 17102004 from gali No. 7. This fact of missing Sessions Case No. : 79/11 Page 29 of 50 30 has been corroborated by PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3. The factum of missing of Naushad w.e.f. 17102004, is also fortified as a DD No. 15 B Ex. PW 4/A was lodged in police station Uttam Nagar in this regard.
60. Accused Arshad is related to victim Naushad being his cousin brother and PW 1 has categorically stated that he had accompanied accused Arshad because he was his bhaiya. PW 1 has also stated in his examination in chief as to the manner in which he was taken by the accused persons and kept in dizzy condition by giving him Fruti and tablet.
61. In the cross examination of these three witnesses done on behalf of accused Arshad @ Aman, Sajid Abbas @ John and Madhukar Singh, nothing has come out so as to discredit their testimony about the fact that PW 1 Naushad was found missing from his house w.e.f. 17102004. Even in their statements U/s 313 Cr.P.C the accused persons have barely stated it to be as incorrect that on 17102004 they had kidnapped master Naushad from the lawful guardianship of his parents. They have been correctly identified by PW 1 as they all were known to him and they are the persons who had taken him on 17102004.
62. Therefore, the prosecution has been able to prove that Sessions Case No. : 79/11 Page 30 of 50 31 accused persons namely Arshad @ Aman, Sajid Abbas @ John and Madhukar Singh who have been correctly identified by PW 1 master Naushad had kidnapped him from the lawful guardianship of his parents. So, accused persons namely Arshad @ Aman, Sajid Abbas @ John and Madhukar Singh are accordingly held guilty and convicted U/s 363 IPC r.w. Section 34 of IPC.
63. As far as accused Durga Singh is concerned, there is no evidence on record that he was the person who had also gone with the above said three accused persons to kidnap PW 1 Naushad on 17102004. Therefore, the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge of kidnapping against accused Durga Singh. He is, therefore acquitted of the charge U/s 363/34 IPC.
64. Whether the accused persons can be convicted U/s 364 A IPC : Ld counsel for the accused persons have urged that apart from others one of the ingredients for constituting an offence of kidnapping for ransom is threat or conduct giving rise to an reasonable apprehension that the person kidnapped would be put to hurt or put to death.
65. It is urged by the Ld defence counsel that in the instant case the testimony of the witnesses does not bring out that any Sessions Case No. : 79/11 Page 31 of 50 32 threats were extended to the child or to the life of the child who was kidnapped. It is further urged that there is no evidence of any conduct of the kidnappers where from any apprehension of injury or threat to the life of the child kidnapped could be inferred.
th
66. As per the prosecution, master Naushad a student of 6 class, aged around 11 years as on 18102004 went missing and did not return home. Master Naushad appeared as PW 1 and he fully supported the case of the prosecution and identified the accused persons. PW 1 has categorically stated that accused Arshad who is his relative who took him from the gali and brought him to main road where they met accused Sanjay and accused Sajid @ John. According to PW 1 he was given Fruti to drink and a tablet to eat after which he became unconscious and later found himself in the house of one Kakaji i.e accused Durga Singh and was kept in a locked room in the house of accused Madhukar. He has also categorically stated that they had made him talk to his father twice and on one occasion they had put a revolver on his head and threatened him that in case his father would not fulfill their demand they would kill him.
67. He further deposed that he was recovered by the police Sessions Case No. : 79/11 Page 32 of 50 33 and accused Madhukar, Arshand and Sajid Abbas @ John were arrested by the police and he was recovered and handed over to his father. He correctly identified the above said accused persons. He has also identified accused Durga Singh @ Kakaji. But accused Durga Singh @ Kakaji was not arrested alongwith accused Arshad, Sajid @ John and Madhukar as he was not present at the place from where the victim was recovered.
68. This witness was cross examined at length by the counsel for the accused persons but nothing material could be extracted from his cross examination to discredit his testimony. The testimony of this witness was also corroborated by PW 2 Dilshad Beg who is his father and who had reported the matter regarding his missing on 18102004. He has categorically stated that a demand of rupees seventy lakh was raised from him and the caller had threatened him that his son would be killed in case their demands were not met.
69. PW 2 was cross examined by the Ld counsel for the accused persons and in his cross examination he stated that once the caller wanted to talk to his wife and the caller made his son talk to his wife. He further stated in his cross examination that during the said talks between his wife and his son, his son Sessions Case No. : 79/11 Page 33 of 50 34 was crying and saying "Mammi Bacha Lo Nahi To Mar Dalenge Aur Ye Paisa Inko De Do."
70. PW 3 Smt. Nargis Begum who is the mother of the kidnapped child has also corroborated the statement of her husband, to the extent that her son was crying and saying that the money be given otherwise her son would be killed.
71. So from the testimony of these three witnesses, it is clear that PW 1 Master Naushad was kidnapped on 18102004, and later on threatening ransom calls were received by PW 2 father of victim Naushad.
72. PW 2 has stated that he had recorded the conversation in a tape and handed over the same to the concerned SHO. He has further stated that he had handed over two audio cassettes to the SHO which were seized vide memo Ex. PW 2/C and the cassettes were exhibited in the Court as Ex. P1 and P2.
73. It is urged by the Ld defence counsel that one of the recording instrument was handed over by PW 2 to the police. It is further submitted by him that the recordings were done by the PW 2 of his own. It is further submitted by him that the IO had not taken the sample voice of the accused persons which could be tallied with the voice recorded in the alleged audio cassette. So Sessions Case No. : 79/11 Page 34 of 50 35 no reliance can be placed on such types of recordings to connect the accused persons.
74. PW 16, SI Harbir Singh has stated in his examination in chief that the complainant Dilshad Beg handed over to him two audio cassette, he heard the conversation, there were threatening ransom calls. He had seized both the cassette and the transcripts of the conversation were prepared vide his request Ex. PW 16/E and the audio scripts are Ex. PW 16/E1 and Ex. PX3.
75. This witness when crossexamined he categorically stated that he had not obtained sample voice of any accused and he had not sent the voice samples to FSL for comparison. So in these circumstances, no reliance can be placed on the recorded conversation relied by the prosecution.
76. So even if the prosecution has failed to prove the recorded conversation regarding the ransom demand, in my opinion, there is enough evidence on record with regard to demand made from PW 2 in the form of testimony of victim Nausad, his father Dilshad Beg and his mother Nargis Begum. The accused persons namely Arshad @ Aman, Sajid Abbas @ John and Madhukar Singh are therefore held guilty and convicted Sessions Case No. : 79/11 Page 35 of 50 36 U/s 364 A/34 IPC.
77. ARREST OF THE ACCUSED PERSONS namely Arshad @ Aman, Sajid Abbas @ John and Madhukar Singh :
The witnesses of arrest are PW 2, PW 14, PW 16 and PW 9. PW 16 (IO) has stated that he alongwith police officials and Dilshad Beg on 18112004, at about 6 p.m reached at Gantak river Motihari. After leaving the police party there, he alognwith constable Prahalad reached at village Jogaharia and he directed constable Prahalad to talk with the local persons in their dialect as he belonged to Bihar. During the inquiry, constable Prahalad came to know that in a room situated in the locality and belonging to accused Madhukar a child has been confined.
78. So after coming to know about the situation, they came back to Gantak river at about 11:00 p.m where they had left the other police officials and Dilshad Beg. He deposed that the matter was discussed with senior police officers at Delhi and SP Motihari was contacted. The matter was also brought to the knowledge of concerned SHO Madan Prasad and the IO told him about the conversation with the SP of the area. On the asking of the SHO the IO gave a written request for raid which is Ex. PW 16/A. Sessions Case No. : 79/11 Page 36 of 50 37
79. He further deposed that the SHO of PS Madhubini assisted them in the raid and he took them to the place where the kidnapped boy was confined. He further deposed that thereafter the house of Madhukar was raided and at that time the house was guarded by Sanjay Singh, Madhukar and Shiv Shanker (since PO). He further deposed that on seeing the police party all the three persons ran way from the house. SHO Madan Prasad knocked at the door but the door was not opened. So having no option the door was broken but before break opening the door they had heard the cries of a child and when they peeped from the window, they saw a child inside the toilet. He further deposed that SHO Madan Prasad asked the name of the child, who disclosed his name as Naushad Beg and also disclosed his residential address. He further deposed that SHO Madan Prasad entered the door first and accused Madhukar tried to fire on them but his katta misfired. He further deposed that accused Arshad was also there in the house and was having a double barrel gun and accused Sajid @ John was holding the child and was having single barrel gun with him. He further deposed that SHO Madan Prasad took the child as Sajid John by that time had left the child on floor and the custody of the child Sessions Case No. : 79/11 Page 37 of 50 38 was handed over to Dilshad, father of the child who was waiting outside in a Qualis. He further deposed that a separate case U/s 25/54/59 was registered against the accused persons and the copy of the proceedings are Ex. PW 14/A to Ex. PW 14/D and receipt dated 19112004 about receiving of the child is Ex. PW 14/A. He further deposed that he prepared the site plan of the place of recovery of the child which is Ex. Pw 16/B. He further deposed that thereafter he alongwith all the accused persons and the child returned to PS Madhubini where accused Arshad, Sajid and Madhukar were arrested vide memo Ex.PW 9A, PW 9/B and PW 9/C which bears his signatures at point C and the personal search memo of the accused are Ex.PW 9/D, PW 9/E and PW 9/F. He further deposed that the child was handed over to his father Dilshand Beg vide memo Ex. Pw 2/A.
80. All the accused persons were interrogated and they made disclosure statements which are Ex. PW 3/G, PW 3/H and PW 3/J. He further deposed that accused persons were handed over to Bihar police. Thereafter PW 16 moved an application for production of the accused in Motihari Court and took transit demand and brought them to Delhi on 21112004 and the accused were produced in the Court concerned. He further Sessions Case No. : 79/11 Page 38 of 50 39 deposed that on 24112004, Naushad was medically examined.
81. The Ld. APP with the permission of the Court had put a leading question to this witness. The witness in the reply stated that it was accused Madhukar who was present when the raid was conducted and accused Durga Prasad had escaped with his associates namely Shiv Shankar and Sanjay Singh.
82. This witness was cross examined on behalf of accused Durga Singh and in the cross examination he stated that it is correct that Durga Singh was not present there at that time as he has run away. He further stated that he had not seen accused Durga Singh prior to the incident and he had only seen accused Durga Singh when he was produced in the Court. He further stated that before the arrest of accused Durga Singh, there was no evidence against him.
83. This witness was cross examined at length on behalf of accused Madhukar, Sajid Abbas @ John and Arshad @ Aman and in his cross examination he stated that the child was not produced in Motihari court and denied the suggestion that the child was not produced in Motihari Court as he was not recovered from Bihar. He further denied the suggestion that as the child was not recovered from Bihar that is why permission was not Sessions Case No. : 79/11 Page 39 of 50 40 obtained from Bihar Court to hand over the child to his father. He further stated that medical examination of the child was not conducted in Bihar but denied the suggestion that since the child was not recovered from Bihar, he was not medically examined there. However, there is nothing in the cross examination of this witness to make his testimony regarding arrest of the accused persons and recovery of the child unreliable.
84. PW 14 is SI Madan Prasad Singh who accompanied PW 16 when the raid was conducted at the house of accused Madhukar and the child was recovered. He has also corroborated the testimony of PW 16 in all material particulars. He was also cross examined on behalf of the accused persons but nothing material could be extracted from his cross examination to discredit his testimony.
85. PW 2 who is the father of the kidnapped child has also supported the testimony of Pw 16 and PW 14. he deposed that his son was recovered from the House of Madhukar and was handed over to him and accused Madhukar alognwith Arsand @ Aman and Sajid @ John were arrested from the same house and his son was recovered from their possession. He identified all the accused persons. He further deposed that his son was Sessions Case No. : 79/11 Page 40 of 50 41 kidnapped by the accused persons. He further depsoed that his son was handed over to him on 19112004 vide seizure memo Ex. PW 2/A. He has also corroborated PW 16 regarding the statement U/s 164 of his son Naushad and about the medical examination of his son.
86. So all the three witnesses have corroborated each other on all the material particulars regarding the arrest of the accused persons and the recovery of the child from their possession. During the course of the arguments, it was vehemently argued by the counsels for the accused that since the child was not produced in the court at Bihar and he was not medically examined there, the recovery of the child from the possession of the accused persons is highly doubtful. I do not subscribe to the view of the Ld defence counsel because at the most it can be said to be the negligence of the IO in not producing the child before the Bihar Court and it seems that since the child was recovered unharmed, in his over zealnous he handed over the child to his father. As far as the non conducting of the medical examination of the child in Bihar is concerned, it is neither the case of the prosecution or that of the accused that the child was not in a fit condition or he was suffering medically. So non examination in Sessions Case No. : 79/11 Page 41 of 50 42 this circumstance does not create a doubt about the recovery of the child from the possession of the accused persons from Bihar. So to conclude this point, the prosecution has been able to prove that the aforesaid three accused persons namely Arshad @ Aman, Sajid Abbas @ John and Madhukar Singh were arrested from the house of accused Madhukar and at that time, the child was recovered from their possession. PW 1 was recovered from the possession of accused Arshad @ Aman, Sajid Abbas @ John and Madhukar Singh as already held and they were identified by him. PW 1 has also identified accused Durga as Kakaji, but he was not arrested at the spot alongwith other accused persons from whose custody the child was recovered No description of the accused is given by the child Naushad (PW 1) in his testimony. So his identification for the first time in the Court is of no value.
87. ARREST OF ACCUSED DURGA SINGH : As per the prosecution three persons managed to escape when the raid was conducted. PW 15 is SI Sachhinand of PS Buddha Colony Patna. He has deposed that on 19112006, accused Durga Singh was arrested in case FIR No. 95/06 U/s 364 A/414/379/34 IPC and during the interrogation in that case he made disclosure Sessions Case No. : 79/11 Page 42 of 50 43 regarding his involvement in the present case. PW 15 therefore, informed the police of PS Uttam Nagar who arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW 11/A. Accused made a disclosure statement Ex. PW 11/C.
88. PW 11 is also one of the witness of arrest and he alongwith ASI Dharam Singh went to Bihar at Motihari Jail where accused Durga Singh was lodged. Accused was interrogated by ASI Dharam Singh. Accused was lateron arrested in this case.
89. PW 11 was cross examined and in his cross examination he stated that he could not tell whether there was any evidence against accused Durga Singh which was available on record to justify his arrest.
90. PW 12 ASI Dharambir Singh is also one of the witness of arrest of accused Durga Singh. He arrested the accused and recorded his disclosure statement. In his cross examination he has denied the suggestion that accused had not made any disclosure statement.
91. PW 16 who is the IO of the case has stated in his cross examination that before the arrest of accused Durga Singh there was no evidence against him.
92. From the testimony of the arresting witnesses discussed Sessions Case No. : 79/11 Page 43 of 50 44 hereinabove it is crystal clear that there was no evidence against accused Durga Singh before his arrest. The only evidence against accused Durga Singh is his disclosure statement. He was not arrested from the spot and nothing has been recovered at his instance. The IO has also admitted in his cross examination that he had not seen accused Durga Singh before his arrest. So it cannot be said that accused Durga Singh was one of the persons who escaped when the raid was conducted and consequent thereto Nausahd was recovered. So in these circumstance, it would be highly unsafe to convict him on the basis of his disclosure statement alone. Accused Durga Singh is, therefore acquitted of all the charges framed against him.
93. So from the discussions hereinabove, it is crystal clear that all the three accused persons namely Madhukar Singh, Sajid Abbas @ John and Arshad Aman were instrumental in kidnapping the accused and thereby kept him confined in a room and ransom calls were made to parents of Nausad and even Naushad was threatened by them. So I have no hesitation in holding that the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention kidnapped the child for ransom.
94. The accused persons have also been charged U/s 212/34 Sessions Case No. : 79/11 Page 44 of 50 45 IPC for harboring and concealing the child Naushad knowing well that he was kidnapped and was screened intentionally by them from his parents. According to Section 212 IPC whoever harbours or conceals a person whom he knows or has reason to believe to be an offender, with the intention of screening him from legal punishment is liable to be punished under this Section.
95. In the present case, it is the case of the prosecution that the house where the child Naushad was kept belonged to accused Madhukar Singh where he had confined the child Naushad and accused Arshad @ Aman and Sajid Abbas @ John were also living in the said house. Accused Madhukar therefore, can only be charged U/s 212 IPC as the house in question belonged to him as stated by the IO PW 16. There is no challenge to this testimony of the IO and even in the statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C the accused has only replied vaguely. So accused Madhukar Singh is, therefore, held guilty and convicted U/s 212 IPC and accused Arshand @ Aaman and Sajid Abbas @ John are acquitted of the charge U/s 212/34 IPC because the house in which they were concealing themselves and were harboured belonged to accused Madhukar Singh.
96. Accused persons have also been charged U/s 347/34 IPC for wrongfully confining the child and for extorting Rs. 75 Lakh from his parents. From the testimony of the witnesses and the discussions hereinabove, it can be safely held that it was the accused persons Sessions Case No. : 79/11 Page 45 of 50 46 namely Arshad @ Aman, Sajid Abbas @ John and Madhukar Singh who in furtherance of their common intention kidnapped the child Naushad from the lawful custody of their parents and thereafter the child was confined in the house of Madhukar. It has also been held that the accused persons are the kidnappers and they after kidnapping the child demanded a ransom of Rs. 75 Lakh from the father of the child Dilshad Beg as a condition for his release. So the accused persons namely Arshad @ Aman, Sajid Abbas @ John and Madhukar Singh are also held guilty and convicted U/s 347/34 IPC and accused Durga Singh is acquitted of all the charges framed against him.
97. Put up for arguments on the point of sentence on 25102012. Accused Shiv Shankar and accused Sanjay Singh are proclaimed offenders. The prosecution is at liberty to get the case received against them as and when they are arrested.
(Announced in the open Court on 16102012.) (RAJNISH BHATNAGAR) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGEII OUTER DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS : DELHI Sessions Case No. : 79/11 Page 46 of 50 47 IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE II, OUTER DISTRICT ROHINI COURTS : DELHI IN RE : Sessions Case No. : 79/11 FIR No. : 918/04 P.S. : Uttam Nagar U/s : 363/364 A /212/347/34 IPC State Vs.
1. Arshad @ Aman S/o Tajjammul Beg, R/o Village Mandawar, District Bijnore, U.P.
2. Sajid Abbas S/o Mattizuddin R/o Pushkarpur, Distt. Nalwari (Assam)
3. Madhukar Singh S/o Suresh Prasad R/o Jagolia, P.S. Madhubani, District Motihari, Bihar.
4. Durga Singh S/o Late Sh. Raj Nandan Singh R/o Village Dumaghat, Choube Toda, P.S. Madhuban, Distt. East Champaran, Bihar.
5. Shiv Shankar S/o Bani Bhagat R/o Village Machaha, P.S. Madhuban, District Madhuban, Bihar. (PROCLAIMED OFFENDER)
6. Sanjay Singh S/o Adhar Singh R/o Village Darmaha, District Motihari, Bihar. (PROCLAIMED OFFENDER) Sessions Case No. : 79/11 Page 47 of 50 48 ORDER ON SENTENCE
1. I have heard Ld. APP for the State and Ld. counsels for the convicts on the point of sentence.
2. It is urged by the Ld. counsels for the convicts that convicts are young men, have a family to support, are the only bread earner of their family and are the first time offenders and have been facing the trial for the last many years. It is further submitted that this is not the rarest of the rare case inviting imposition of capital punishment.
3. On the other hand, it is urged by the Ld. APP that the convicts are not entitled to any mercy and maximum punishment be awarded to them.
4. All the convicts have been convicted by me U/s 363/364/A/347/34 IPC and accused Madhukar Singh has also been convicted U/s 212 IPC vide my separate judgment dated 16102012.
5. The convicts in the instant case have kidnapped an innocent child and demanded ransom from his parents for his release. so I sentence all the convicts to undergo rigorous Sessions Case No. : 79/11 Page 48 of 50 49 imprisonment for 5 years each and pay a fine of Rs. 3000/ each U/s 363/34 IPC and in default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months each.
6. I further sentence all the convicts to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 10000/ each U/s 364A/34 IPC and in default of payment of fine the convicts shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months each.
7. I further sentence all the convicts to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years each and pay a fine of Rs. 5000/ each U/s 347/34 IPC and in default of payment of fine they shall under simple imprisonment for three months each.
8. I also sentence accused Madhukar Singh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and pay a fine of Rs. 5000/ U/s 212 IPC and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. All the sentences to run concurrently.
9. The benefit of section 428 Cr.P.C. be given to Sessions Case No. : 79/11 Page 49 of 50 50 convicts. Copy of judgment and order on sentence be given to convicts free of cost. File be consigned to Record Room. (Announced in the open Court on 27112012) (RAJNISH BHATNAGAR) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGEII OUTER DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS : DELHI 27112012 (Copy attached).
Sessions Case No. : 79/11 Page 50 of 50 51 Sessions Case No. : 79/11 Page 51 of 50 52 Sessions Case No. : 79/11 Page 52 of 50 53
Sessions Case No. : 79/11 Page 53 of 50