Delhi District Court
State vs . Kanwar Khan Etc. on 15 May, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH DHARMENDER RANA
Metropolitan Magistrate, NorthEast, KKD COURTS, DELHI
State Vs. Kanwar Khan Etc.
FIR N0. : 48/1998
U/S : 363/384/511/34 IPC
PS : Seelampur
a) Sl. No. of the case : 317/2011
b) Date of commission of offence : 18.01.1998
c) Date of institution of the case : 24.09.1999
d) Name of the complainant : Ali Raza
e) Name & address of the :
1) Kanwar Khan S/o Alla Rakha R/o
Near Bharat Cinema, Village Budhana,
Muzaffar Nagar, UP.
2) Sartaz S/o Nazir R/o Near Bharat
Cinema, Village Budhana, Mujjafar
Nagar, UP (Declared PO).
3.) Mohd. Shameem @ Muneem S/o
Khan R/o Village Budhana, Muzaffar
Nagar, UP. (Declared PO)
f) Offence complained off : 363/384/511/34/120B IPC
g) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
FIR No. 48/1998 Page 1 of 6
h) Arguments heard on : 15.05.2012
i) Final order : Acquitted
j) Date of Judgment : 15.05.2012
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1.Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 18.01.1998 at about 3:30 PM at gali no 18, Gautam Puri Delhi accused Kanwar Khan alongwith co accused Sartaj and Mohd. Shameem kidnapped one Javed from the lawful guardianship of his father namely Ali Raza and demanded Rs. 300000/ from complainant Ali Raza in lieu of his child Javed. FIR No. 48/98 was registered with PS Seelampur and investigation was carried out.
2. Upon completion of investigation charge sheet U/s 363/384/511/34/120B IPC was filed on behalf of the IO and the accused Kanwar Khan and sartaj were consequently summoned as accused Mohd. Shameem was PO. A formal charge for the offence U/s 363/384/511/34 IPC was framed against accused Kanwar Khan and accused Sartaj on 09.10.2000 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. However, accused Sartaj absconded during the course of trial and he was declared PO vide order dated 15.05.2006. The trial thereafter continued against accused Kanwar Khan and instant judgment is passed only qua accused Kanwar Khan.
3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined five witnesses. FIR No. 48/1998 Page 2 of 6
4. PW1 ASI Jagbar Singh is the duty officer who has proved that on 21.01.1998 at about 8:30 PM one Ali Raja came to PS and on the basis of his statement he recorded FIR. He has proved the same vide Ex. PW1/A.
5. PW2 Ali Raja deposed that on 18.01.1998 my son Javed aged six years was playing in front of my aforsaid house and he was missing from there at about 3.30 p.m I searched for him by my all means and also given information to PCR on the aforesaid date. I lodged complaint in this regard in the police station which is EX PW 2/A which bears my signature at point A. Police officials took my telephone no. 2194023 on observation. On 05, 6,9,10,12 April 1999 I received telephone calls made by some person who demanded money for my son Javed. Persons making the telephone calls demanded Rs. 3 lakhs from me from my son. It resembled the voice of person who making the telephone calls and demanded money from me of the accused Kanwar Khan. The person who made call to him on telephone on 12.4.99 called him on 13.4.1999 at Gulawati bus stand alongwith money. He told his fact to the police. Then he alongwith police officials who were in civil uniform went to Gulawati bus stand alongwith money (with some plain papers of same size and put Rs. 500/ on it) in a briefcase. They wait for the person who demanded money from him but no one has come there. After waiting some time, they all came back. Then on 14.4.99 he received a telephone call and person who made the telephone call to him called him at Ritz Cinema near Kashmiri Gate alongwith the money. He again stated this information to the Police. Then he alongwith police officials who were in civil uniform reached at FIR No. 48/1998 Page 3 of 6 Ritz Cinema he took red colour cloth in his shoulder as person made telephone call to him had asked him to put red colour cloth on his shoulder to him. When he was waiting near Ritz Cinema one person by the name of Sartaj came there. Police officials apprehended him. He stated that kidnapped boy was not with him. He stated that he alongwith one Mukeem made planing to extract money from me. Police officials made personal search of accused vide memo EX PW 2/B which bears his signature at point A. Police also recorded his disclosure statement vide memo EX PW 2/C which bears his signature at point C Accused today present in the court, used to come at his vicinity and he was Tantrik. When caller made telephone call and demanded money his wife Khursida stated that his voice resemble with the voice of accused, today present in the court.
6. PW 3 Smt Khurshida has deposed that on 18.1.98 her son was kidnapped. they searched for him but he was not traced. For this they made information to the police. One Tantrik used to come at our vicinity. After that some telephone calls came her home and demanded money from them in lieu of their son. She received phone and stated to her husband that the voice of telephone caller is resembled with the Tantrik who used to visit out vicinity. After that they made inquiry but nothing was found.
7. PW4 HC Dhir Singh is a member of raiding party who arrested accused Sartaj.
FIR No. 48/1998 Page 4 of 6
8. PW5 HC Mahesh Kumar has deposed that he alongwith Inspector H.S. Shaini came to the Court and formally arrested the accused and conducted his formal search and recorded his disclosure statement Ex. PW5/A.
9. PE was closed by order of the Court dated 26.04.2012 and statement of accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 15.05.2012, wherein he has denied the allegations levelled against him in toto. Accused has opted not to lead any defence evidence.
10. I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the record.
11. In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused.
12. In the instant case neither the complainant Ali Raza (PW2) nor his wife Khursheeda (PW3) have supported the prosecution version in the witness box. There is nothing on record to suggest that the accused is the author of the alleged kidnapping or the extortion. Even despite an elaborate crossexamination by the Ld. APP the complainant Sh. Ali Raza (PW2) and his wife Smt. Khurseeda (PW3) have refused to identify the accused as perpetrator of the offence. Rather to the contrary, they have both in unison categorically denied that the accused Kanwar Khan was the person behind the extortion calls. Although complainant Ali Raza (PW2) and Ms. FIR No. 48/1998 Page 5 of 6 Khurseeda (PW3) have admitted in their examinationinchief that they have received extortion calls but they have refused to identify accused Kanwar Khan as the person behind the alleged kidnapping or the extortion calls. The prosecution witnesses have further refused to endorse the prosecution version to the effect that accused Kanwar Khan made any extortion calls. Once the complainant Ali Raza and his wife Khurseeda, have themselves absolved the accused Kanwar Khan of any indictable guilt, nothing remains on record to sustain the conviction of the accused for the offence U/s 363/384/511/34 IPC. Accused Kanwar Khan is accordingly acquitted for the charges levelled against him.
Announced in the open Court on 15.05.2012 (DHARMENDER RANA) MM, N/E KKD COURTS 15.05.2012 FIR No. 48/1998 Page 6 of 6