Delhi District Court
St. vs . Raj Kumar Etc on 30 January, 2014
SC No -71/12
FIR No 54/12
P.S Binda pur
St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc
IN THE COURT OF DR. VIJAY KUMAR DAHIYA
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE 02: DWARKA COURTS
NEW DELHI
SC No. 71/12
FIR No. 54/12
Police Station Bindapur
U/Section 364 A/34 IPC
Received on assignment 18.07.2012
Reserved for orders on 17.12.2013
Judgment announced on 30.01.2014
State Vs 1. Raj Kumar s/o Late Sh.
Bhawani Parsad R/o B34,
Vikas Kunj, Mohan Garden,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi .
2. Mohd. Majid s/o Mohd,
Shahid R/o E117, Sector 3,
Phase3, JJ Colony, Dwarka,
Delhi.
J U D G M E N T
1. The accused persons have been sent up for trial for offence u/s 364 A/34 IPC.
2. Stating briefly, as per prosecution story, on 2.03.2012 SI Shashank alongwith Constbale Rahul on receipt of DD No. 4 A , the contents of which are to the effect that from near pillor no. 722, Matiala Village a person has been kidnapped in a Honda city car bearing no. DL 4 SC No 71/12 Page 1/75 SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc CAH 8519 . ASI Ram Chander PCR had followed that Honda City car and after reaching Sector 12, the said car disappeared; reached at the spot i.e Pillor no. 722 and it transpired that the said car bearing no. DL 4C AH 8519 has been found near DPS Public School, Dwarka, thereafter, IO went to to DPS school, Dwarka where the complainant Deepak Singhal got recorded his statement stating therein that he is running a factory and manufacturing boxes at Khasra no. 61 Matiala Village near Tops Achar factory. On 1.3.2012 , at about 10:30 p.m he was coming from the said factory to his house in Honda City car bearing no. DL 4 CA H8519 of white colour. He traveled for a short distance and on reaching near Fish market, one accused Sagar who had earlier worked with the complainant alongwith another person, who was not known to the complainant, asked for lift from the complainant up to main Najafgarh road and the complainant had given a lift to Sagar as well as said unknown person. After crossing the fish market, Sagar asked for stopping the car and there accused Raj Kumar and accused Majid were standing and they also SC No 71/12 Page 2/75 SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc sit in the car of the complainant by saying that they had also go to Main Najafgarh Road.
3. Thereafter said unknown person who had accompanied accused Sagar had pointed out pistol on his head and accused Sagar pointed out knife on his back and further threatened the complainant that if he moved, he will be killed. Accused Sagar instructed the complainant to move towards Bahadurgarh. The complainant followed the instructions of accused Sagar and he drove his vehicle accordingly. In the mean time, accused Sagar took mobile phone bearing No. 9818150580 of complainant and made a call to Sh. Suresh Kumar, father of the complainant at his mobile phone bearing No. 9810592708 and demanded ransom of Rs.15 lacs otherwise, the complainant would be killed. The accused persons further instructed Suresh Kumar, father of complainant Deepak to reach at Verdhman Market, opposite DPS alongwith money at 1 a.m on 02.01.2012 and accordingly, at about 1 a.m, father of the complainant went to Vardhman Market as per SC No 71/12 Page 3/75 SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc instruction of the accused alongwith amount of Rs.8 lacs and all the accused after taking amount of Rs.8 lacs from father of complainant fled away. Accused had also taken away his mobile phone no. 981850580, his purse containing Rs.7 to 8,000/ and RC of Honda City Car as well as licence. Thus, the FIR was registered under Section 364 A/34 IPC.
4. Statement of witnesses were recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
Witness Ashish has also got recorded his statement to the effect that after getting information of kidnapping for ransom of complainant Deepak Singhal, he came to Dwarka Mor for searching his cousin and saw Honda City Car crossing from there. He informed PCR officials and, thereafter, he and PCR officials chased the said Honda City car but the said car disappeared from the scene near sector12, Dwarka, New Delhi. Witness Suresh Kumar has also got recorded his statement stating therein that kidnapper had demanded Rs.25 lacs by making call from phone of his son Deepak on his mobile phone. Thereafter, ransom amount was settled SC No 71/12 Page 4/75 SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc for an amount of Rs.8 lacs. Kidnapper has instructed him to bring the said amount at Vardhman Market near DPS, Dwarka and accordingly, he went there with the said amount. Kidnapper released his son / complainant Deepak after taking the money. The complainant Deepak had also handed over his blood stained cloth which has fallen from the hand of accused Sagar, who had got injured his hand while putting knife at the neck of complainant Deepak.
5. On 4.3.2012 accused Raj Kumar was apprehended on the basis of secret information from near East Metro Station, Uttam Nagar bus terminal. He was arrested and his personal search was conducted. He got recovered amount of Rs.1,12,500/ lying in a old fridge at his house bearing no. B 34, Vikas Kunj, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar. The said amount was seized and mobile phone of accused Raj Kumar having two sim bearing no. 9871534409 of Airtel and 9582879318 of voda phone were also seized. Thereafter, on 05.03.2012 secret information was received that accused Mohd. Majid SC No 71/12 Page 5/75 SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc would come at Dwarka Mor Metro Station. He was arrested from there and accused Majid also made disclosure statement and from his personal search, an amount of Rs.1.4 lacs was recovered from the bag he was carrying. An amount of Rs.2,97,500/ was seized by the police alongwith other articles left by accused Yusuf. The proceedings u/s 82 Cr.PC was conducted against accused Yusuf and Sagar. After completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons namely Raj Kumar and Mohd. Majid for offence u/s 364 A/34 IPC.
6. After supplying copies to both the accused as per law, case was committed to the court of sessions.
7. After due deliberation, charge under Section 364 A/34 IPC was framed against both the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
8. To substantiate this case, prosecution had examined 19 witnesses, who have supported the case of the SC No 71/12 Page 6/75 SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc prosecution on the basis of which FIR was lodged.
9. PW1 Sh. Deepak Singhal is complainant in this case whose testimony will be discussed in later part of the judgment.
10. PW2 Sh. Suresh Kumar Singhal is father of the complainant whose testimony will be discussed in later part of the judgment.
11. PW3, SI Shamsher Singh has deposed that on 2.3.2012 he was posted as duty officer at PS Binda Pur and at about 1.25 a.m he received an information that a person has been kidnapped in a Honda City car and ASI, Ram Chander of PCR has chased the car and he recorded the said information vide DD No.4A as (Ex.PW3/A). Thereafter, in the night he had received rukka from Constable Rahul sent by SI Shashank and he lodged FIR (Ex.PW3/B) and made endorsement on the rukka vide (Ex. PW3/C).
SC No 71/12 Page 7/75
SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc
12. PW4 Sh. Vishal Gaurav has proved the customer application form alongwith ID proof of mobile phones no. 9871534409,9818150580 and 9810592708 in terms of Ex.PW4/B, Ex.PW4/D, Ex.PW4/F respectively. He also proved call detailed of the said three phone numbers w.e.f 25.2.2012 to 03.03.2012 in terms of Ex.PW4/A, Ex.PW4/C and Ex.PW4/E respectively and further proved the certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act in the respect of above said mobile phone vide Ex.PW4/G.
13. PW5 is Sh. Ashish Singhal whose testimony will be discussed in later part of the judgment.
14. PW6 Sh. M. N Vijayan is Nodal Officer who proved the customer application form alongwith ID proof in respect of mobile nos. 9210003216, 9211991334 and 9212826413 owned by Sadhna Singh w/o Sh. Shiv Sagar Singh, Mohd. Shahid s/o Sh. Mohd. Islam and Sadhna Singh w/o Sh. Shiv Sagar Singh respectively. He also proved call details of the said three phone numbers w.e.f 25.2.2012 to 03.03.2012 in terms of Ex.PW6/B, Ex.PW6/D SC No 71/12 Page 8/75 SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc and Ex.PW6/F respectively and further proved the certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act in the respect of above said mobile phone vide Ex.PW6/G. He further proved the cell ID chart of location as Ex.PW6/H.
15. PW 7, Constable Jai Bhagwan has deposed that on 4.3.2012 he alongwith constable Jitender and Constable Amrik went to Pali Factory at about 6 a.m in search of the accused as SI Jitender received secret information that accused Raj Kumar would come at Pali factory to meet someone. They went to Metro Station of East Uttam Nagar where at the pointing out of the informer at 6.30 a.m, accused Raj Kumar was apprehended and after interrogation he was arrested, his personal search was taken , accused Raj Kumar made his disclosure statement and his mobile phone was also seized in terms of documents namely arrest memo Ex.PW7/A , personal search memo Ex.PW7/B, disclosure memo Ex.PW7/C and seizure memo Ex. PW7/D respectively. Thereafter, the accused Raj Kumar took the police party to his house at RZ 34, Vikas Kunj, Mohan Garden. Accused got SC No 71/12 Page 9/75 SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc recovered Rs.1,12,500/ from a old fridge kept in his house consisting two currency notes of the denomination of Rs.1000/ and remaining currency notes of the denomination of Rs.500/ each. The said amount was seized vide memo Ex. PW7/E. This witness also identified the case property. During cross examination nothing could be elicited from this witness which may cause doubt in the prosecution story.
16. PW8, Ct. Rahul has deposed that on the intervening night of 1/02.03.2012 he alongwith SI, Shashank on receipt of DD No. 4A went to Metro Pillor No. 722 and came to know that Honda City car has been found stationed near DPS, Dwarka, thereafter, he went to the spot alongwith IO/SI Shashank where IO recorded statement of PW1 Deepak and after making endorsement on the same, got registered the FIR through PW8. Thereafter, PW8, SI Shashank , SI Jitender , Complainant, his father and brother went to Deepak's Packaging factory at 61 Matiala where IO SC No 71/12 Page 10/75 SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc seized the blood stained shirt of complainant Deepak.
17. During cross , this witness has admitted that his statement was recorded at DPS. No person met them at Metro pillar no. 722 and at about 2 a.m, SI, Shashank received a call that the said Honda City car was found stationed near DPS and on this information, he went near DPS, thereafter, IO recorded statement and IO got recorded FIR of this case through him as he took rukka at about 2.15a.m and after lodging FIR he came back with copy of FIR within 3540 minutes. Nothing more could be elicited in the testimony of the witness so as to cast doubt in the prosecution story.
18. PW9, ASI, Ram Chander has deposed that on the night intervening 1/02.03.2012 he was posted at PCR Van Z74 and at about 12 .30 a.m he was present near pillar no. 772 where one person came and pointed out towards Honda Ciity car and told him that his brother has been kidnapped in that car. He (PW9) alongwith brother of victim chased the Honda City car to some distance and SC No 71/12 Page 11/75 SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc thereafter, the said car disappeared. PW9 flashed the wireless message and later on, came to know that the said car was apprehended by the other PCR van.
19.PW10, Constable Amarjeet Singh had joined investigation alongwith HC Harphool and HC Rohtash on 05.03.2012 as HC Rohtash has received secret information that accused Majid would come at Dwarka Mor Metro Station on that day and the police party reached the Metro Station and at about 10:00 am, accused Majid was apprehended at the instance of the secret informer. He was having a bag with him. He was interrogated and he admitted his involvement. Thereafter, HC Rohtash called PW19/IO on telephone and SI Jitender reached the spot and after getting formal search, an amount of Rs. 1,40,000/ was recovered from the bag of the accused Majid which was consisting of 85 of currency notes of Rs. 1,000/ each and remaining amount was consisting of currency note of Rs. 500/each which were seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW10/A. Accused was arrested and his personal search SC No 71/12 Page 12/75 SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc was conducted vide Ex. PW10/B and PW10/C respectively. The said bag which accused was carrying also seized vide seziure memo Ex. PW10/D. Thereafter, accused Majid pointed out the place of occurrence as well as the place where the ransom money was collected by him alongwith his coaccused as PW10/E and PW10/F respectively. He has also identified the currency notes as Ex. P1 and the bag containing clothes found therein as Ex. P2. In cross, he has admitted that accused Yusuf has taken money from the father of the complainant PW2, Suresh Kumar Singhal and he could not tell the distance between point A in site plan and the DPS school and he could not tell the directions of the road shown in the site plan. The distance between mother dairy booth and main road is stated to be merely a distance of ten steps and he admitted that no public person was joined in the investigation.
20. PW11 is Const. Amrik Singh, who has joined investigation with IO and PW7, Const. Jai Bhagwan on 02.03.2012 and deposed on the lines of PW7 and, inter SC No 71/12 Page 13/75 SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc alia, deposed that accused Raj Kumar took the police party to his house and got recovered an amount of Rs. 1,12,500/ i.e 221 currency notes in the denomination of Rs.500/ and one note of Rs. 1,000/ which were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW7/E. In cross, he admitted that there was no specific mark of identification on the currency notes and he cannot segregate the photocopies of the currency notes which relates to accused Raj Kumar. IO did not put any identification mark on the currency notes but currency notes were sealed in parcel and he did not recollect the number of document prepared by the IO at the spot. No public person including wife of accused Raj Kumar was joined in the investigation. IO had told him that accused wanted in this robbery case would come and he has to join the investigation.
21. PW12 is HC Harphool Singh, who has joined the investigation on 05.03.2012 alongwith HC Rohtash, Const. Amarjeet and he has also deposed on the lines of PW10 Const. Amarjeet Singh and, inter alia, deposed SC No 71/12 Page 14/75 SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc that SI Jitender Kumar alongwith Const. Amrik Singh and accused Raj Kumar reached there and, thereafter, accused Mohd. Majid arrested and his personal search was conducted and bag in which he was carrying Rs. 1,40,000/ and some other clothes were recovered from the said bag. The amount as well as the bag were seized. Thereafter, accused persons led the police party to the place of occurrence where they boarded the Honda City Car of victim Deepak. Accused also pointed out the place from where they had received the ransom amount. This witness has identified the case property. In cross, he has admitted that he did not recollect the departure DD number vide which the police party has left the police station but the police party reached at Sector3, J.J.Colony at about 9:00 am. The distance between police station and J.J.Colony, Sector3 is about 1 km. The distance between Dwarka Mor Metro Station and PS Bindapur is at about two kilometer and number of persons were present at the metro station when accused Mohd. Majid arrested. IO had not taken the statement of any public person and did not recollect whether any SC No 71/12 Page 15/75 SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc denomination chart regarding the currency notes prepared by the IO. He further denied the suggestion that all the documents were prepared in the police station. He has also admitted that his statement under section 161 Cr.PC was recorded but he did not remember the time. HC Rohtash has given the information to SI Jitender regarding apprehension of accused Mohd. Majid whereas such facts were not recorded in his previous statement. The distance between the factory of the complainant and place from where the accused persons had deboarded the car is about 300400 meters which is a public place. The distance between the above said place from where the victim was kidnapped for ransom and place of receiving of ransom is about 700800 meters. The place of recovery of ransom amount is 2030 feet from Vardhman market in North West direction. The distance between the Vardhman and main gate of DPS school is about 100 meters. No public person came forward to join investigation. He has also admitted that there is another Vardhman market in front of the abovesaid Vardhman Plaza at about 50 feets away. SC No 71/12 Page 16/75
SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc
22. PW13 is HC Deepak, who has stated that on 02.03.2003, he received a PCR call to the effect that one person has been abducted alongwith Honda City bearing NO. DL 4 CAH 8519 from near metro pillar No. 722 Matiyala. He filled up the PCR form vide Ex. PW13/A.
23. PW14 is Const. Mukesh Kumar who had gone alongwith Inspector Subhash Chand and PSI Vijay Pal to PS Mufasil, Distt. Munger, Bihar in search of accused Yusuf on 07.03.2012. Inspector Subhash received a secret information that accused Yusuf would come alongwith his wife to the house of his inlaws and accused Yusuf was known to PW14. After seeing the police party, said Yusuf dropped the briefcase at the spot and fled away with his wife and children. The said briefcase was checked which was found containing amount of Rs. 2,97,500/ of currency notes of denomination of Rs. 1000/ and Rs. 500/. One driving licence of Yusuf and I card of one Ajmeri Begum was also found in that briefcase. The said articles were seized vide Ex.PW14/A SC No 71/12 Page 17/75 SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc and driving licence and I card were seized vide Ex.PW14/B and Ex. PW14/C respectively.
24. PW15 is HC Rohtash who alongwith HC Harphool and Const. Amarjeet joined the investigation on 05.03.2013 and he has deposed on the line of HC Amarjeet and inter alia, stated that accused Mohd. Majid was arrested and, thereafter, IO Jitender was informed who alongwith Const. Amrik and accused Raj Kumar came at the metro station Dwarka Mor and accused Mohd Majid was arrested by the IO and his personal search was conducted and amount of Rs. 1,40,000/ was recovered from his possession alongwith used clothes and currency notes were having denomination of Rs. 1000/ (85 notes) and Rs. 500/ (92 notes of same series 9PM635344 to 9PM635345. In cross examination, he has admitted that IO might have made the DD entry at the time of arrival and IO recorded his statement after returning to PS and IO/SI Jitender was informed telephonically after arrest of accused Mohd. Majid and he has come to the spot in his private Wagon R car and SC No 71/12 Page 18/75 SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc police party remained at the Dwarka Mor metro station for about 11 ½ hours. No public person had joined investigation at metro station and distance between beat area and Dwarka Metro Mor Station is about 2.5 kms. The distance between Machhi Market and factory of complainant is about 250 meters. Mother Dairy booth is attached to the Vardhman Market. The distance between Vardhman Market to Main gate of DPS is about 50 meters. DPS had many gates and all gates are main gates and many public persons were asked to join investigation after receiving information from secret informer but none joined investigation.
25. PW16 is SI Shashank, who on the intervening night of 01/02.03.12 went to metro pillar No. 722 alongwith Const. Rahul after receiving DD No.4A where complainant PW1 Deepak met him in Honda City car bearing No. DL 4CAH 851 PW16 recorded the statement of PW1 vide Ex. PW1/A and prepared rukka on the said statement Ex. PW16/A and got the FIR lodged after sending Const. Rahul to PS and, thereafter, PW16 alongwith SC No 71/12 Page 19/75 SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc complainant came to his factory and made enquiries and returned to PS and, thereafter, he handed over the documents and complaint to IO/PW19 SI Jitender Kumar. IO had also seized one blood stained shirt of complainant in his factory.
26.In cross examination, he has admitted that he did not remember the time of his departure from PS on the intervening night of 01/02.03.2012 and he took one hour in recording the statement of the complainant. No family member of complainant came to pillar No. 722 during their stay and distance between pillar No. 722 and factory of complainant is about 1.5 kms. He could not tell the time of stay of police party at the factory of complainant. The shirt of the complainant was stained with blood.
27. PW17 is SI Vijay Pal, who had deposed on the line of PW14 Const. Mukesh, so far as amount of money recovered from the suitcase left by accused Yusuf and the concerned articles were seized by PW18 Inspector SC No 71/12 Page 20/75 SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc Subhash Chand vide Ex. PW17/A.
28. PW18 is Inspector Subhash Chand, who alongwith SI Vijay Pal and Const. Mukesh went PS Mufasil, Distt. Munger, Bihar on 05.03.2012. He conducted raid in search of accused Yusuf but he could not be traced. On 07.03.2012, information was received that accused Yusuf would come Benigir to leave his wife at her home. Const. Mukesh called Yusuf and after seeing constable Mukesh and police party, accused Yusuf left the suitcase and ran away from there. The said suitcase was found containing Rs. 2,97,500/ and some used clothes. The said acticles were seized and suitcase was also seized and he gave written information to PS Mufasil and to the court of Ld. CJM regarding said recovery. Thereafter, he deposited the said amount with MHCM. He has also identified the case property.
29.During cross, he has admitted that seizure memo was prepared at the spot and the witness Nazim of seizure memo resides at Secstor 3, Dwarka but he hails from SC No 71/12 Page 21/75 SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc Bihar. Local PWs were not cited as prosecution witnesses of such seizure memo. He received information that accused Yusuf was residing with his fatherinlaw at his home.
30. PW19 is SI Jitender Kumar and investigation of this case was assigned to him. He alongwith Const. Rahul went to the spot i.e opposite Vardhman Plaza and DPS, Dwarka Sector3 where complainant Deepak/PW1, PW2 Suresh Kumar and PW5 Aashish, cousin of PW1 and SI, Shashank met him. SI Shashank informed him about the facts of this case. He alongwith his relatives as well as police officials went to the factory of the complainant and prepared site plan at the instance of the complainant vide Ex. PW19/A. He has also seized the blood stained shirt of the complainant vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/B. He also recorded supplementary statement of the complainant and supplementary statement of the witnesses and tried to trace the accused persons but they were not found.
SC No 71/12 Page 22/75
SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc
31.On 04.03.2012, he alongwith Constable Jai Bhagwan and Const. Amrik left the police station and when they reached near Himalaya Sagar restaurant, secret informer informed that accused accused Raj Kumar wanted in this case would come at Uttam Nagar. He reached there. Accused Raj Kumar was apprehended and arrested. His personal search was conducted and one mobile phone make Genius was recovered from the possession of accused Raj Kumar which found containing two mobile Nos. 9871534409 of Airtel and 9582879318 of Vodafone which were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW7/C and in terms of disclosure statement of accused Raj Kumar, accused Raj Kumar got recovered Rs. 1,12,500/ from his house in an old fridge which were also seized.
32.On 05.03.2012, he alongwith Constable Amrik and accused Raj Kumar were busy in the investigation of this case. In the meantime, information was received that co accused Mohd. Majid had been arrested from Dwarka Mor station. He went to the spot and found HC Rohtash, HC Harphool and Const. Amarjeet alongwith accused SC No 71/12 Page 23/75 SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc Mohd. Majid. His personal search was conducted and his disclosure statement was recorded and his bag was also checked which found containing Rs. 1,40,000/ which were also seized. Thereafter, he prepared the site plan at the instance of both the accused persons near Machhi Market, Sector3, Dwarka from where the accused persons had boarded the car and this witness also prepared the site plan vide Ex. PW19/A. At the instance of accused Mohd. Majid site plan of the place from where accused Yusuf had collected the ransom amount was prepared vide Ex. PW19/C. On 09.03.2012, Inspector Subhash Chand brought Rs. 2,97,000/ recovered from the bag of accused Yusuf which were deposited with the MHC(M) and said amount was released on superdari by Ld. Trial Court.
33.During the course of said investigation, he collected the call details as well as customer application form in respect of mobile No.9818150580 of the complainant, mobile No. 9871534409 of accused Raj Kumar and 9810592708 of PW2 Suresh Kumar. He has also collected SC No 71/12 Page 24/75 SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc call details of mobile phone of Tata which was in the name of Ms. Sadhna Singh, wife of another accused Sagar, who is not apprehended. One phone was found belonging to father of accused Mohd. Majid and third phone of Ms. Sadhana. Accused Sagar and Yusuf could not be arrested.
34.In cross, he had admitted that on the intervening night of 01/02.03.2012, he was on 24 hours duty in PS. SI, Shashank was on emergency duty. He did not remember the time of receiving of DD No. 24 A. On receiving copy of FIR and rukka, he went to the spot alongwith Const. Rahul at about 1:40 am near Mother Dairy booth near Vardhman Plaza and DPS. The distance between the main gate of DPS and the spot from where he found the car parked should be 1.5 kms and nearby wall of the DPS school is about 80 yards from the spot of incident. He did not see the vehicle in which father of the complainant had come at the time of giving ransom amount. SI Shashank was present there when he reached the spot. The father of the complainant i.e PW2 Suresh Kumar SC No 71/12 Page 25/75 SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc had not told him about the vehicle by which the accused persons took away the ransom money. PW2 Suresh Kumar told that one person went in the back lane after receiving the amount. He did not prepare any document at the spot at that time. He alongwith SI Shashank, Const. Rahul, father of PW1 Deepak and PW5 Aashish, cousin of PW1 went to the factory of the complainant and seized the blood stained shirt of complainant which was having blood on the front side of the shirt and he do not remember whether the guards were placed on the main gate of the factory in the site plan dated 02.03.2012.
35.He admitted that family members of complainant were not cited as PWs while preparing the site plan. He returned to the PS on 02.03.2013 at about 10:30 am after completing the proceedings. Family members of the complainant were relieved by him at about 10:00 am from the factory but remained associated with him during rest of proceedings on their own. He reached the PS on 02.03.2012 at about 10:30 am. Accused Raj Kumar was not sitting in the PS alongwith his family members. SC No 71/12 Page 26/75
SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc He searched the area of Mayapuri and Vikas Kunj and brother of accused Raj Kumar met him and wife of accused Raj Kumar was also present there. He came to know about the address of Raj Kumar from her mother who met PW19 at Mayapuri at about 6:00 am on 02.03.2012.
36. The complainant had not shown him the way from place of his kidnapping to Mother Dairy, otherwise, complainant had shown him the place from where two persons had boarded in his car. Complainant did not tell him the distance which he covered during his confinement. PW19 had not prepared the route chart from Dwarka Mor Metro Station to the place of receiving the ransom amount and; before the arrest of the accused persons, IO/PW19 kept on searching the accused persons whom he could not found. He alongwith police party in government gypsy left towards the Himalaya Sagar restaurant at old Pankha Road. Thereafter, he left Himalaya Sagar restaurant and secret informer joined there. At the instance of secret informer, accused Raj SC No 71/12 Page 27/75 SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc Kumar was apprehended. He did not know the reasons for which the accused Raj Kumar was coming at Metro Station. No public person was joined in the disclosure statement of the accused Raj Kumar. Other documents prepared at the spot. The father of the complainant had not given the denomination of currency notes paid as ransom amount. Accused Raj Kumar again joined investigation on 05.03.2012. PW19 alongwith HC Rohtash, Const. Amarjeet and HC Harphool and alongwith two accused persons, left towards Machhi market and went to Vardhman Plaza where he remained there at about half an hour. No public person was joined as witness. PW19 further admitted that Ex. PW19/B is undated. He further admitted that he had not shown any house/shop close to A mark in the map. He had never gone to pillar no.722 for making enquiry about the contents of DD No.4A as he had already examined the caller of said DD namely PW5 Aashish. He had also recorded the statement of ASI Ram Chander/Aashish who had followed the car alongiwth said caller/Aashish and he had not filed any record to show that the SC No 71/12 Page 28/75 SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc caller/informant of DD No.4A is Aashish.
37. Complainant had not shown him the place from where ransom call was made during his kidnapping from his factory till he was released near Vardhman Plaza in the intervening night of 01/02.03.2012 as complainant had told him verbally the places/route. He had not made the father of the complainant and his cousin as witnesses to the documents prepared on the day of incident. PW19 had also not prepared the site plan of place where accused persons deboarded the car of complainant to receive ransom amount. It transpired during investigation that accused Raj Kumar was contractor in the factory of the complainant for carrying out work through his loabour and left the contract few days prior to date of incident as there was some dispute regarding amount of transactions taken place between the accused Raj Kumar and complainant/PW1. He has no knowledge whether the said dispute was settled or not. On 05.03.2012, HC Rohtash, HC Harphool, Const. Amarjeet met him at Dwarka Mor Metro Station where he SC No 71/12 Page 29/75 SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc reached after receiving a call from HC Rohtash and he has requested 23 persons to join investigation but none came forward and he has not prepared the site plan of the place where the recovery of Rs. 1,40,000/ was made from accused Mohd. Majid and there was some dispute between accused Mohd Majid and complainant regarding payment.
38. Thereafter, accused persons were examined under section 313 Cr.PC and they pleaded innocence and lead defence evidence.
39.DW1 is Smt Tara Chand, who has stated that she had four sons and two younger sons reside with her at Mayapuri and other two elder sons namely Raj Kumar and Rajinder reside at Vikas Kunj, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar. Accused Raj Kumar was working as a contractor in the factory of complainant. Her other son Rajinder is a generator mechanic, who used to purchase and sell the old generators. In the intervening night of 01/02.03.2012, police came to her house at Mayapuri between 2:002:30 SC No 71/12 Page 30/75 SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc am with complainant Deepak, his father and with another third person. Police took her to Mohan Garden at the residence of accused Raj Kumar. Police picked up both her sons namely accused Raj Kumar and Rajinder before 4:00 am and detained her sons for 34 days and left her son Rajinder after three days. PW19 SI Jitender Kumar demanded sum of Rs. 1,25,000/ for letting off her son Raj Kumar from the case and she handed over to him Rs. 1,25,000/. The amount of Rs. 75,000/ she has arranged from her bank on 13.02.2012 and Rs. 50,000/ were kept by her son Rajinder. Her son could not purchase the generator as owner of the generator was out of Delhi. She has placed on record a copy of her bank account Ex. DW1/A. IO had also told her not to disclose this fact of handing over to Rs. 1.25 lacs to anybody. Her son has been implicated in this case at the instance of PW1 as her son had approached the police at Bindapur for setting his accounts but nothing could be done.
40. In cross, she has admitted that she had not brought any document to show that her another son Rajinder was SC No 71/12 Page 31/75 SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc dealing in sale and purchase of old generators and is having any licence/Tin No./Sale tax number for sale and purchase of said generators and she could not disclose the source of arranging of Rs. 50,000/ she did not complaint against SI Jitender Kumar to high officers even after the fact that her son Raj Kumar was not released by the police.
41. DW2 Rajinder stated that on 02.03.2012, police official came at his house at about 3:45 4:00 am alongwith Deepak and his father Suresh Kumar with whom his brother Raj Kumar was working as a contractor and his mother was also brought by police from Mayapuri to know about address of his brother Raj Kumar. DW2 alongwith accused Raj Kumar was detained in the police station for three days. IO/SI Jitender Kumar demanded Rs. 1.25 lacs to let him and accused Raj Kumar off by making approver. The said amount was kept at his house as some air compressor was to be purchased and for that purpose, amount was taken by his mother and remaining amount of Rs. 50,000/ was with him. In cross, he has SC No 71/12 Page 32/75 SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc admitted that he is having no document regarding his carrying of the business of sale and purchase of old generator nor he is having any tin number. Out of said amount of Rs. 50,000/, Sanjay Chaudhary has given Rs. 10,000/ in cash and deposited Rs. 5,000/ in the account of his mother and one Khandelwan of Faridabad has given Rs. 20,000/. The said amount was kept at home. He also admitted that bribe of Rs. 1,25,000/ was not demanded from him or in his presence.
42. DW3 is Subhash, who has stated that on 02.03.2012, he was present in his house adjoining to the house of accused Raj Kumar. He heard noise of weeping and some shouting and came out of his house where he found 45 pokice persons were present. Police took accused Raj Kumar and his brother Rajinder and Rajinder was let off after 34 days and accused Raj Kumar was not let off by the police. In cross, he has admitted that he did not make any call from his mobile on 100 number when police officials took both Raj Kumar and Rajinder from there as he did not consider anything illegal or abnormal SC No 71/12 Page 33/75 SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc in taking away of both the persons.
43. I have heard counsels for the parties and with their assistance gone through the record.
44. It has been contended by the State counsel that accused had kidnapped PW1 on the pretext of taking lift from him in his Honda City car and, thereafter, demanded ransom amount for releasing PW1 Deepak, from his father Suresh Kumar. Accused kept on roaming here and there. In the meantime, Honda City car in which PW1 was kidnapped by the accused persons was seen running on the road and PW5 Aashish, cousin of PW1 Deepak/complainant had followed the car of PW1 by requesting PW9 Ram Chander, Incharge of PCR van which was standing at Dwarka Mor. PW9 in his PCR van alongwith PW5 Aashish followed the Honda City car in which PW1 was kidnapped but could not catch hold of the accused persons and in the meantime, accused Raj Kumar deboarded from the Honda City car near pillar No. 750 and other coaccused deboarded the car from SC No 71/12 Page 34/75 SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc the spot of incident and after collecting ransom amount from PW2 Suresh Kumar fled away. Therefore, in view of the impeccable testimony of PW1 to PW5 which is supported by police witnesses as well as recovery amount got recovered at the instance of accused persons as well as mobile phone connectivity of victim and his family and inter se connectivity over mobile phones amongst the accused persons, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts and accused deserve to be convicted.
45. Per contra, Ld. Defence counsel has contended that accused persons had been falsely implicated in the present case as the complainant/PW1 had to pay the amount which was due to accused Raj Kumar. Otherwise, the prosecution case is full of material contradictions and discrepancies with regard to the manner of kidnapping, place of occurrence, sequence of events, call for ransom made by accused and his father for negotiation of ransom amount as well as for chasing of Honda City car by PCR van etc which the prosecution SC No 71/12 Page 35/75 SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc has failed to explain. Even the conduct of the accused persons is also not natural as per prosecution story because if the victim is known to the accused persons, they would have never spared him after getting ransom amount as identity of the accused persons was disclosed to the victim. Therefore, the prosecution case is bundle of lies and accused deserve to be acquitted.
46. At the very outset, it may be noted here that victim and his father PW1 and PW2 respectively have used the following phone numbers during the relevant period namely:
Mobile No. User Ownership 9818150580 (herein Deepak Singhal Deepak Singhal after referred as A) 9810592708 Suresh Singhal Suresh Singhal (hereinafter referred as B)
And the inter se connectivity of these mobile phones is reproduced hereunder:
(I) Call details of mobile No.9818150580 of PW1 Deepak Singhal Calling No. Called No. Date Time Dur(s) 9810592708 9818150580 01/03/12 10:26:22 22 SC No 71/12 Page 36/75 SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc (B) (A) PM 9818150580 9810592708 01/02/12 10:27:19 44 (A) (B) PM 9818150580 9810592708 01/02/12 10:28:28 50 (A) (Bl PM 9818150580 9810592708 01/02/12 11:59:10 101 (A) (B) PM 9818150580 9810592708 01/02/12 12:21:26 156 (A) (B) AM 9818150580 9810592708 02/02/12 12:52:33 71 (A) (B) AM 9818150580 9810592708 02/02/12 01:19:36 25 (A) (B) AM 9818150580 9810592708 02/02/12 01:20:44 92 (A) (B) AM 9818150580 9810592708 02/02/12 01:22:42 0 (A) (B) AM 9818150580 9810592708 02/02/12 01:22:52 0 (A) (B) AM 9818150580 9810592708 02/02/12 01:23:31 0 (A) (B) AM (II) Call details of mobile No.9810592708 PW2 Suresh Singhal Calling No. Called No. Date Time Dur(s) 9810592708 9818150580 01/02/12 10:26:22 PM 22 (B) (A) 9818150580 9810592708 01/02/12 10:27:19 PM 44 (A) (B) 9818150580 9810592708 01/02/12 10:28:28 PM 50 (A) (B) 9810592708 9810201655 01/02/12 10:30:02 PM 94 (B) 9810592708 9810043513 01/02/12 10:34:23 PM 148 (B) SC No 71/12 Page 37/75 SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc 9818150580 9810592708 01/02/12 11:37:02 PM 183 (A) (B) 9818150580 9810592708 01/02/12 11:06:01 PM 218 (A) (B) 9810592708 9810050425 01/02/12 11:27:09 PM 8 (B) 9818150580 9810592708 01/02/12 11:59:05 PM 101 (A) (B) 9810050425 9810592708 02/02/12 12:08:58 AM 46 (B) 9818150580 9810592708 02/02/12 12:21:21 AM 156 (A) (B) 9818150580 9810592708 02/02/12 12:52:33 AM 71 (A) (B) 9818150580 9810592708 02/02/12 01:19:41 AM 26 (A) (B) 9818150580 9810592708 02/02/12 01:20:44 AM 92 (A) (B) 9818150580 9810592708 02/02/12 01:22:45 AM 0 (A) (B) 9818150580 9810592708 02/02/12 01:22:55 AM 0 (A) (B) 9818150580 9810592708 02/02/12 01:23:33 AM 0 (A) (B) 9891742500 9810592708 02/02/12 01:34:19 AM 13 (B) 9810592708 9810050425 02/02/12 01:35:29 AM 37 (B) 9810050425 9810592708 02/02/12 01:38:17 AM 19 (A) 9810592708 9560707683 02/02/12 01:59:40 AM 17 (B) 9810592708 9560707683 02/02/12 02:00:34 AM 44 SC No 71/12 Page 38/75 SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc
47. The accused persons have also used the following mobile phones during the relevant period namely:
Mobile No. User Ownership 9871534409 Raj Kumar Raj Kumar (hereinafter referred as C) 9211991334 Mohd. Majid Mohd. Shaid (hereinafter referred as D) 9210003216 Accused person Sadhna Singh (hereinafter referred as E) 9212826413 Accused person Sadhna Singh (hereinafter referred as F)
And their inter se connectivity is reproduced hereunder:
(I) Call details of mobile No. 9871534409 of Raj Kumar.
Calling No. Called No. Date Time Dur(s) 9871534409 9210003216 01/02/12 09:19:47 19 (C) (E) PM 9871534409 9210003216 02/02/12 01:24:23 7 (C) (E) AM 9210003216 9871534409 02/02/12 01:31:35 21 (E) (E) AM 9871534409 9210003216 02/02/12 01:32:36 12 (C) (E) AM 9871534409 9210003216 02/02/12 01:53:56 22 (C) (E) AM SC No 71/12 Page 39/75 SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc (I1) Call details of Mobile No 9211991334 of Mohd. Shaid.
Calling No. Called No. Date Time Dur(s) 9210003216 9211991334 01/02/12 10:51:24 69 (Sadhna (Mohd. PM Singh) Shaid)
(III) Call details of mobile NO 9210003216 of Sadhna Singh Calling No. Called No. Date Time Dur(s) 8505978266 9210003216 01/02/12 09:14:17 31 (E) PM 9871534409 9210003216 01/02/12 09:19:49 19 (C) (E) PM 9211049244 9210003216 01/02/12 10:32:56 1 (E) PM 9210003216 9211991334 01/02/12 10:53:52 69 (E) PM 9871534409 9210003216 02/02/12 01:24:25 7 (C) (E) AM 9210003216 9871534409 02/02/12 01:31:39 21 (E) (C) AM 9871534409 9210003216 02/02/12 01:32:39 21 (C) (E) AM 9871534409 9210003216 02/02/12 01:32:39 12 (C) (E) AM 9871534409 9210003216 02/02/12 01:53:59 22 (C) (E) AM (VI) Call details of mobile No.9212826413 of Sadhna Singh. Calling No. Called No. Date Time Dur(s) 9968884853 9212826413 01/02/12 09:19:47 PM 411 (F) 9268344254 9212826413 01/02/12 09:34:01 PM 900 (F) SC No 71/12 Page 40/75 SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc
48.As per allegations, the accused persons namely Raj Kumar and Mohd. Majid alongwith coaccused Yusuf and Sagar (still not apprehended) had kidnapped PW1 Deepak/complainant at about 10:30 pm on 01.03.2012 on the pretext of seeking lift from him. First of all, accused Sagar and one unknown accused (Yusuf ) sought lift. Thereafter, accused Raj Kumar and Mohd. Majid also asked for lift at some distance and after boarding the car, accused persons kidnapped the victim PW1 Deepak on gun point as well as on knife point. The father of the complainant/PW2 Suresh Kumar called his son as to where he is and PW1 Deepak/complainant told his father that he has been kidnapped by some persons. Accused persons demanded ransom for releasing PW1 and ransom amount was settled at Rs. 8 lacs. In the meantime, accused kept on roaming here and there and were seen while travelling in Honda City car by PW5 Aashish and he sought help from PCR van in chasing the said Honda City car. The car could not be apprehended but after sometime, accused collected ransom amount and let off PW1 Deepak. Accused Raj Kumar was SC No 71/12 Page 41/75 SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc apprehended on 04.03.2011 and he got recovered hefty amount from his house and accused Mohd. Majuid was apprehended and found in possession of Rs. 1,40,000/ and accused Yusuf could not be caught hold off but an amount of Rs. 2,97,500/ was found in the suitcase left by him at the spot in Bihar.
49. Now to appreciate the case of the prosecution, I would like to advert the testimony of PW1 Deepak, PW2 Suresh Kumar and PW5 Aashish. PW1 has stated that on 01.03.2012 at about 10:00 pm, he was coming from his factory at Matiyala Village by Honda City car of white colour and after covering some distance, accused Sagar, who was his former employee, alongwith other co accused had asked for a lift. He allowed them to sit in the car. Thereafter, after covering some distance near fist market, accused Raj Kumar and Mohd. Majid, who were earlier his employees sought lift. After reaching near Najafgarh Road, accused Sagar put a knife on his back and unknown person (Yusuf ) put pistol on him and directed him to move forward. Accused took him SC No 71/12 Page 42/75 SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc towards Bahadurgarh. He kept on driving as per the directions of the accused persons. Thereafter, accused Sagar called his father, Suresh Kumar on his mobile phone from mobile phone of PW1 and demanded Rs. 15 lacs as ransom, otherwise PW1 Deepak would be killed. PW2 Suresh Kumar could not arrange Rs. 15 lacs and accused persons agreed for an amount of Rs. 8 lacs as ransom amount which was to be delivered at Vardhman market at about 1:00 am on the intervening night of 01/02.03.2012. Father of PW1 came with said amount and on the way, accused Raj Kumar got down from the car near pillar No.750 to collect his bike. After reaching Vardhman market, accused persons also got down from the said car and snatched the bag from the hand of his father and ran towards Dwarka on foot. The accused had also taken his mobile, wallet and cash amount of Rs. 78,000/. His brother informed police. Police met him after 15 minutes of fleeing away of the accused persons. Police recorded his statement Ex.PW1/A when accused Sagar put knife at his back, accused Sagar got injured his hand and his shirt was stained with blood which was SC No 71/12 Page 43/75 SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc seized by police. He identified accused Yusuf when his licence shown to him by the police on 27.05.2012.
50.In cross, he has admitted that the statement Ex. PW1/A was recorded in PS. He did not remember the time when it was written. On 02.03.2012 at about 7:008:00 am, when his father and cousin Aashish were present, he did not remember whether police has taken his signature on any document or not. He has visited the PS in respect of this case for 1012 days regularly. His father kept on going in the PS for about one month in respect of recovery of cash amount. He alongwith his family went to the PS at 5:00 am after the incident and after returning to the PS, he had not gone to the house of any accused but he has visited the house of accused Raj Kumar, prior to the returning to the place. Police has brought the accused Raj Kumar at 5:00 6:00 am on 02.03.2012 and brother and mother of accused Raj Kumar were also with the police at that time.
51. He further admitted that accused Raj Kumar has worked SC No 71/12 Page 44/75 SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc in his factory for about one month. Accused Raj Kumar used to have 1012 labourers for him and a bill of about 3035,000/ was being raised by accused Raj Kumar per month when accused Raj Kumar left the work at his factory, an amount of Rs. 8,000/ was payable by accused Raj Kumar to PW1. Accused Raj Kumar left the job on 27.02.2012. Accused Raj Kumar and Sagar had not lodged any complaint against him for non payment of their wages. He further denied the suggestion that amount of Rs. 5060,000/ was payable by him to the accused persons and on this account, he has been falsely implicated the accused persons.
52. Accused Sagar and unknown person (Yusuf ) sought lift from PW1, Deepak. Foreman of his factory and one Subodh of another factory had seen the accused persons while sitting in his car and he has told about Pankaj Mishra and Subodh to the police but he has not told their names to the police. Both these persons namely Pankaj Mishra and Subodh had told him, later on, that they had seen accused persons having taken lift in his SC No 71/12 Page 45/75 SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc car. The way on which car was running meets the metro line at pillar no. 750. Accused persons compelled him to go to Dwarka Mor and they took him to Bahadurgarh. Accused Raj Kumar and Mohd. Majid had played no role except threatening PW1. He alongwith accused persons reached Dwarka Mor at about 1:00 am and during that period, accused made 57 calls to his father from mobile phone of PW1. He took 57 minutes in reaching the place of collection of ransom amount by the accused from Dwarka Mor. One PCR van was seen parked when he was returning from Bahadurgarh.
53.The distance between the place from there he took left turn towards the Vardhman Chowk and place of handing over ransom amount is about one kilometer and his father had already reached there after parking his car near Mother Dairy. Accused persons alighted from his car. He took U turn and proceeded towards his house. On the way PCR met him after crossing Vardhman. After 15 minutes, his father also reached there and his cousin Aashish came in the PCR. He alongwith police party SC No 71/12 Page 46/75 SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc remained at the spot for 45 minutes. Thereafter, he accompanied the police alongwith his relatives in police vehicle in search of accused persons and went to Vikas Nagar in search of accused Raj Kumar. Police had also gone to the house of accused Raj Kumar at Mayapuri.
54. PW2, Suresh Kumar, father of PW1 Deepak has stated hat on 01.03.2012 at about 9:00 pm, he went to his house from his factory as his son was left there. At about 10:20 pm, he made a call on the mobile phone of his son Deepak but he had not picked the phone. Thereafter, his son PW1 picked the phone and told him that he had been kidnapped by unknown persons. Thereafter, some unknown persons talked to him from mobile phone of PW1 and directed him to arrange an amount of Rs. 25 lacs, otherwise, his son would be killed. At about 11:00 pm, he received a call from mobile phone of his son and accused persons asked him to arrange an amount of Rs. 15 lacs. PW2 Suresh Kumar told accused persons that he was not having such amount and ultimately accused persons agreed for Rs. 8 lacs and further instructed PW2 SC No 71/12 Page 47/75 SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc that they would tell the place of delivery of ransom amount after one hour.
55. After one hour, he received another call from the mobile phone of his son and accused persons asked him to bring Rs. 8 lacs in Vardhman Market, Dwarka at about 1:00 am and further instructed PW2 not to call police, otherwise, his son would be killed. Considering the safety of his son, he has not called the police and at about 1:00 am, he alongwith Rs. 8 lacs reached near Vardhman Market. Thereafter, at about 11:30 am, he received a call and accused instructed him to reach Mother Dairy Booth near Vardhman Market. He reached there on foot and unknown persons snatched bag from his hand and ran away. He arranged Rs. 8 lacs from cash in hand of his factory.
56. In cross, he has stated that he left his house alongwith money at about 12:40 am in the intervening night of 01/02.03.2012. He went to the Vardhman Market not from Dwarka Mor but by Matiala Road through Mansa SC No 71/12 Page 48/75 SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc Ram Park. His nephew Aashish did not accompany him. He reached Varhman Market within 1015 minutes. He parked his car 15 yards prior to the Mother Dairy Booth but he did not see the car of his son and only accused person approached him to collect the money. When he was returning to his house, then near fish market, he received a call from his nephew Aashish about recovery of his son PW1 Deepak. He turned back and reached the spot of incident. Police was found present there. He did not recollect the distance between the place of handing over of ransom amount and presence of police. There were many police officials present and he alongwith police went to the house of accused Raj Kumar but his house could not be located. Accused Mohd. Majid was not found present in his house. When he reached the police station, accused Raj Kumar was not present there. He was brought there after sometime of their arrival by the police. Accused Raj Kumar settled his account with his son PW1 Deepak on 22.02.2012. He further denied he suggestion that amount of Rs. 5060,000/ was due on his part towards accused Raj Kumar and in order to avoid SC No 71/12 Page 49/75 SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc the said liability, complainant has got lodged a false case against the accused persons. He further denied the suggestion that accused had not demanded an amount of Rs. 25 lacs as ransom amount.
57. PW5 Aashish, cousin of PW1 Deepak/complainant has stated that on the intervening night of 01/02.03.2012, he was present in his house and at about 10:30 pm, his father received a call from his uncle Suresh Kumar/PW2 who has informed that PW1 has been kidnapped for ransom. Kidnappers had demanded Rs. 15 lacs as ransom amount and after negotiations, the amount was settled for Rs. 10 lacs. Ultimately, the ransom amount was settled at Rs. 8 lacs and his uncle PW2 went in his Swift D'Zire car. PW5 went in his Ritz car and parked the same near Dwarka Mor Metro Station. After sometime, he had spotted Honda City car of PW1 Deepak/complainant which crossed Dwarka Mor. He informed the PCR van parked nearby that his brother has been kidnapped in said Honda City car. PCR officials flashed the message through wireless and he alongwith SC No 71/12 Page 50/75 SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc the police officials followed that Honda City car upto Sector12 after that said Honda City Car disappeared. After five minutes, a message has been flashed that said Honda City Car was seen at Vardhman Market. He alongwith PCR officials went there. PW1 Deepak/complainant told him that accused persons were four in numbers and two were his former employees. Accused Raj Kumar was still in the employment of PW1 Deepak/complainant.
58. In cross, he has stated that after receiving information from his uncle PW2 Suresh Kumar, he immediately left for the house of his uncle. He did not remember how many calls were received by his uncle between that time i.e from his reaching and leaving the house of his uncle. He and his uncle had not informed the police from the house of his uncle as kidnappers had threatened to kill PW1 Deepak/complainant if they approached the police. He informed the PCR officials at metro station, Dwarka Mor as he had seen the car of his cousin Deepak so that his brother could be released from the SC No 71/12 Page 51/75 SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc kidnappers. He had not informed the PCR van prior to seeing the car of Deepak. He has also admitted that he has not informed the PCR officials that Vardhman Plaza was settled as a place for delivery of ransom amount. Police gypsy and car of PW1 was parked near DPS school at a distance of 50 yards from the spot of incident. He alongwith police party went to the house of accused Raj Kumar at about 1:001:30 am alongwith a boy who was working in the same factory but accused Raj Kumar was not found there. When he reached the police station, he came to know that accused Raj Kumar was apprehended by the police and he was present in the police station.
59. The contention of the defence counsel is that the independent witnesses who had seen the victim PW1 being kidnapped by accused persons had not been examined and Ld. Counsel for the State has contended that there is no need to cite each and every persons as a witness, as victim PW1 Deepak has given a graphic description of the events on the day of his kidnapping. I find no force in this contention of the counsel for the SC No 71/12 Page 52/75 SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc defence as PW1 has stated in his cross that Pankaj, foreman of his company and one Subodh, security guard of another company had seen the accused persons while sitting in his car, but PW1 has further clarified that he had not told the names of these two persons as these two persons had told PW1, later on, that they had seen the accused persons while sitting in his car; meaning thereby the statement of PW1 was recorded prior to supplying of the said information by Pankaj and Subodh to PW1. Otherwise also, non examination of these two persons is insignificant in view of the testimony of victim PW1. Therefore, non examination of Subodh and Pankaj by the prosecution is not going to cause any dent in the prosecution story.
60. Next contention of the counsel for the defence is that there is a contradiction with regard to the amount of ransom demanded by the accused persons but state counsel has contended that there is no such contradiction in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. I am also of the opinion that said contention SC No 71/12 Page 53/75 SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc as alleged by the defence counsel is devoid of merits as PW1 Deepak has stated that accused had demanded Rs. 15 lacs as ransom amount and ultimately settled at Rs. 8 lacs and PW2 Suresh Kumar, father of PW1 Deepak has stated that accused had demanded amount of Rs. 25 lacs and was bargained for 15 lacs and ultimately settled at Rs. 8 lacs. PW5 Aashish has stated that accused had demanded Rs. 15 lacs and, thereafter, they reduced their demand Rs. 10 lacs and ultimately matter was settled at Rs. 8 lacs. The alleged contradiction in the testimony of PW1 Deepak, PW2 Suresh Kumar and PW5 Aashish is neither here and nor there as PW1 Deepak stated the ransom amount as Rs. 15 lacs and ultimately settled at Rs. 8 lacs and PW2 stated the amount of ransom demanded by accused was Rs. 25 lacs and said demand was reduced to Rs. 8 lacs. Similarly, PW5 Aashish has also stated that the amount of ransom demanded was Rs. 8 lacs. So, there is no contradiction so far as demand of ransom amount is concerned and even if for the sake of arguments, it is presumed that if there is any such contradiction, such contradiction is neither material nor SC No 71/12 Page 54/75 SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc vital so as to effect the prosecution case and at the most, there are minor discrepancies which are bound to occur in the testimony of truthful witnesses.
61. Now coming to the next contention of the defence counsel that PW1 Deepak has stated that accused called his father PW2 Suresh Kumar and demanded ransom amount and PW2 stated that he called his son PW1 Deepak. I found no substance in the said contention as PW2 Suresh Kumar has stated that he called his son at about 10:20 pm from his phone and PW1 Deepak has stated that accused Sagar demanded ransom amount from his phone. The testimony of PW1 is supported by documentary evidence in the shape of call details on both the mobile numbers belonging to PW1 Deepak and PW2 Suresh Kumar and first call is made from the mobile phone No. 9810592708 of PW2 Suresh Kumar, father of PW1 on the mobile phone No. 9818150580 of PW1 Deepak as per the details depicted in para No. 46. From record, it can be inferred that the first call was made by PW2 Suresh Kumar on the mobile phone of his SC No 71/12 Page 55/75 SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc son PW1 Deepak.
62. As far as, the contention of the counsel for the defence that there is a contradiction with regard to the handing over of the ransom amount is concerned. It may be noted here that PW1 Deepak in his statement before police as well as in his deposition has stated that the ransom amount was given at about 1:00 am in the intervening night of 01/02.03.2012 and PW2 Suresh Kumar stated that at about 1:30 am, he received call at Mother Dairy booth. The testimony of PW2 that the amount was delivered at about 1:30 am on the intervening night of 01/02.03.2012 is corroborated by documentary evidence as PCR call regarding kidnapping of one person in Honda City car is lodged at about 1:32 am; meaning thereby upto 1:30 am, the amount of ransom was not taken by accused persons as they were still travelling in the Honda City car of PW1. Testimony of PW2 Suresh Kumar is supported by PW5 Aashish and PW9 ASI Ram Chander who had stated that they have followed Honda City car of PW1 upto sector 12 from SC No 71/12 Page 56/75 SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc where the said car disappeared. So the mere mentioning of PW1 Deepak that the ransom amount was given at 1:00 am is an insignificant discrepancy and not going to effect the prosecution case.
63. So is the case with the alleged contention of the Ld. Counsel for the defence regarding the identity and number of the accused persons who had kidnapped the victim/complainant PW1 as PW1 Deepak has deposed in his statement as well as in deposition that accused were four persons and three were known to him. PW5 has mentioned that PW1, Deepak was released by kidnappers and PW1 told PW5 that four accused were there and out of them two were his employees. But this contention is contrary to the record as PW1 Deepak has specifically named accused Sagar, Raj Kumar and Mohd. Majid in his complaint vide Ex. PW1/A and so is his deposition, therefore, this contention is hereby rejected.
64.Similarly, the contention regarding the date of leaving of job from the factory of PW1 Deepak, by accused Raj SC No 71/12 Page 57/75 SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc Kumar is insignificant as PW1 Deepak has stated that accused Raj Kumar left the job of contractor in his factory on 27.02.2012 and PW2 Suresh Kumar, father of PW1 Deepak has deposed that accused Raj Kumar has settled his account with his son on 22.02.2012 whereas PW5 Aashish has stated that accused Raj Kumar was still in the job till the date of incident. But this alleged contradictions regarding period of employment of accused Raj Kumar in the factory of PW1 Deepak is immaterial because as per statement of accused Raj Kumar, he has left the job prior to the date of incident and he has also made a complaint in PS Bindapur against the complainant for non payment of his contractual amount.
65. Now coming to the contention regarding speed of car of PW1 Deepak at the time when his car was spoted by PW5 Aashish at Dwarka Mor. It may be noted that PW1 Deepak has stated that when he reached Dwarka Mor to Bahadurgarh, the speed of his car was 3040 kms and PW5 Aashish has stated that at that time, the speed of SC No 71/12 Page 58/75 SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc the car of PW1 Deepak was 5060 kms; and PW9 ASI Ram Chander stated that when he chased the car of PW1 Deepak at the instance of PW5 Aashish, the speed of gypsy was 8090 kms. But the said contention regarding speed of the car is immaterial as no witness can be stated to have arithmetic precision of the speed of the car on the dead of night; only the person who drove his car might be knowing the speed of the car and it may also be noted that PW1 Deepak was frightened and traumatized and he cannot be stated to have an exact idea of speed of his car.
66. The next contention of the defence counsel is that there is material contradiction so far as arrest of accused Raj Kumar but this contention is also not worth considering as PW1 Deepak has stated that he had not gone to the house of accused Raj Kumar and accused Raj Kumar was brought to the police station at 5:006:00 am on 02.03.2012. Similarly, PW2 Suresh Kumar and PW5 Aashish had stated that accused Raj Kumar was present in the PS but when the testimony of these witnesses is SC No 71/12 Page 59/75 SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc juxtaposed with the testimony of police witnesses especially of PW19 SI Jitender, who has stated that complainant and his family members were relieved at 10:00 am from the factory and he reached the factory at 10:30 am. It is not the case of any of the police witnesses that PW1 Deepak and his family accompanied him to the police station.Therefore when the IO PW19 SI Jitender Kumar had not reached the police station upto 10:30 am on 02.03.2012 and PW1 Deepak, PW2 Suresh Kumar and PW5 Aashish were relieved from factory at 10:00 am and there is no question of PW1 Deepak, PW2 Suresh Kumar and PW5 Aashish seeing accused Raj Kumar in police station at about 6:00 am on 02.03.2012. The defence evidence also did not attract logic that accused Raj Kumar was apprehended in the early hours of 02.03.2012 and brought to PS and IO had taken Rs. 1,25,000/ from DW1 to let off his son but no complaint was made to higher officers or to the Ld. MM at the time of the production of accused Raj Kumar. Otherwise, amount has been shown to have received from the house of accused at his instance and police witnesses being SC No 71/12 Page 60/75 SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc public witnesses are worthy of credit. Hon'ble Apex Court in Tahir vs State 1996 SCC 515 has considered the value of the evidence of police officials and has observed as follows:
"No infirmity attaches to the testimony of police officials merely because they belong to police force and there is no rule of evidence which lays down that conviction cannot be recorded on the evidence of police officials, if found reliable, unless corroborated by some independent evidence. The rule of evidence however, only requires a more careful scrutiny of their evidence, since they can be said to be interested in the result of the case projected by them. Where the evidence of the police officials after careful scrutiny inspires confidence and is found to be trustworthy and reliable, it can form the basis of a conviction and the absence of some independent witness of the locality to lend corroboration to their evidence does not in any way affect the credit worthiness of the prosecution witnesses."SC No 71/12 Page 61/75
SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc
67. The difference regarding number of accused persons who had collected the ransom amount as contended by defence counsel is also immaterial as PW1 Deepak has stated that three accused persons got down from his car and snatched the bag from the hand of his father PW2, Suresh Kumar and ran towards Dwarka and car of his father was parked behind Vardhman Market. PW2 Suresh Kumar stated that from near Mother Dairy booth one unknown person in unmuffled face collected the ransom amount from him. PW5 Aashish has stated that car of PW1 Deepak was parked near DPS at a distance of 50 yards from the said school. PW19 SI Jitender Kumar stated that distance of main gate of DPS and the spot of incident is about of 1.5 kms.
68.It may be noted here that PW1 has no where stated that his father has come from his house on foot and PW2 Suresh Kumar stated that he came from his Swift D'zire car and PW5 Aashish has also corroborated the testimony of PW2 Suresh Kumar that his uncle has gone in Swife D'zire car and PW5 Aashish has gone in his car SC No 71/12 Page 62/75 SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc and parked near Dwarka Mor metro station and similarly PW1 Deepak only stated that three accused persons deboarded his car and collected the ransom amount from his father. PW2 Suresh Kumar has no where deposed that ransom amount was collected by single person but he only stated that person present in muffled face has collected the ransom amount. So this alleged contradiction regarding number of persons who collected ransom amount is immaterial. Similar contention regarding handing over of the investigation to PW19 SI Jitender Kumar as contended by defence counsel is immaterial as DD No.4A was lodged on the basis of information supplied by PCR officials in terms of Ex. PW13/A and after getting the said information, the said DD (PW3/A) was recorded and assigned to PW16 SI Shashank and in terms of the exhibit PW3/A, SI Shashank went to metro pillar No. 722 and received information that said Honda City car has been got recovered near Vardhman market. He went there and prepared rukka on the statement of PW1 Deepak and at about 2:30 pm, investigation was assigned to PW19 SI SC No 71/12 Page 63/75 SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc Jitender Kumar after recording of the FIR. So it cannot be stated that the FIR is anti timed and investigation was not assigned at given time to PW19 SI Jitender Kumar. There appear no contradiction regarding the testimony of police witnesses regarding assigning the investigation of this case to PW19.
69.Similarly the contention that PW16 SI Shashank stated that he prepared rukka at metro pillar No. 722 is immaterial as PW1 Deepak, PW2 Suresh Kumar and PW5 Aashish had stated that IO recorded the statement of PW1 Deepak at Vardhman Plaza. Similarly, the contention that the statement Ex. PW1/A was recorded in the police station is immaterial as other PWs had stated that statement of PW1 was recorded at the spot near Vardhman Plaza and this fact is also fortified by the documents as the rukka was sent about 3:10 am from the spot and till that time, no police official or public witness has either come to pillar No. 722 or to police station, so this contention is also devoid of force and is hereby rejected.
SC No 71/12 Page 64/75
SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc
70. Next contention of defence counsel is that IO had not prepared the site plan and the site plan which prepared is defective due to lack of details regarding the place where vehicles were parked by the complainant party and the manner in which the alleged amount of ransom was received by the accused persons. But these minor discrepancies as alleged in the site plan is not going to effect the prosecution case as PW1 Deepak who is injured witness has stated in unequivocal terms that accused persons kidnapped him and after getting the ransom amount from his father, they fled away.
71.Similarly, the contention that there is discrepancies with regard to the number of police officials present at the spot of incident after the ransom amount was taken by the accused persons is immaterial as PW2 Suresh Kumar had stated that around 15 police officials present there whereas PW19 SI Jitender Kumar has stated that he alongwith PW8 Constable Rahul and PW16 SI Shashank were present there at the spot. But this contention is SC No 71/12 Page 65/75 SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc also not significant as PW5 Aashish has stated that he alongwith PCR officials also reached at the spot of incident, otherwise, witnesses cannot be having parrot like version in respect of each and every minute details when incident took place.
72.So far as, contention of the defence counsel that the conduct of the victim and his father is wholly unnatural as they had not informed the police and police swung into action on the basis of mobile calls made by some person; but neither the ownership of said mobile number nor the person who had made the call from that has been identified and cited as a witness is concerned. It is relevant to observe here that this contention is also devoid of merits and is hereby rejected as the non supplying of information of kidnapping of his son by PW2 is not unnatural because he was more interested in getting his son released from the clutches of accused persons but PW5 could not held himself back in not seeking the help of PCR when he had seen the Honda City car and he with the assistance of PW9 ASI Ram SC No 71/12 Page 66/75 SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc Chander followed that car which disappeared after approaching sector 12, Dwarka. Testimony of PW5 is further corroborated by PW9 ASI Ram Chander that he followed the said Honda City car which, later on, disappeared and, in the mean time, after 1015 minutes, the said car had been apprehended near Vardhman Plaza. PCR van official/Incharge PW9 ASI Ram Chander to PCR and said information was tendered by Deepak vide Ex. PW13/A and Deepak, in turn, informed the concerned PS and information DD No. Ex. PW3/A was recorded as detailed there that such information was supplied by G50. So non supplying of information to the police regarding alleged kidnapping by PW2 is not going to effect the prosecution case, otherwise, it makes his conduct more natural.
73. Now coming to the contention of the defence that there is a contradiction in the testimony of witnesses regarding arrest of accused Raj Kumar on 04.03.2012. It may be noted that PW7 Const. Jai Bhagwan has stated that he alongwith PW11 Const. Amrik Singh and IO reached SC No 71/12 Page 67/75 SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc near Pali factory and on the information of the secret informer, accused Raj Kumar was apprehended and PW19 SI Jitender Kumar stated that he alongwith PW7 constable Jai Bhagwan and PW11 Const. Amrik Singh reached near Himalaya Sagar restaurant where secret informer supplied information regarding coming of accused Raj Kumar at metro station. The said contradiction in the statement of PW7 Const. Jai Bhagwan and PW19 SI Jitender Kumar is not a vital contradiction so as to cause a dent in the prosecution story. Accused Raj Kumar was apprehended at the spot and on the basis of his disclosure statement, ransom amount was got recovered from old fridge from his house and said recovery is admissible under section 8 of the Evidence Act.
74. The contention of the learned counsel that recovery was not pursuant to disclosure statement of the appellant is liable to be rejected. The recovery of the articles is pursuant to disclosure statement which is admissible under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The SC No 71/12 Page 68/75 SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc registration of FIR is not a sine qua non for the recovery to be effected. Recovery can be effected even on an oral disclosure statement. Further the conduct of the accused leading the police party to his house and the specific place in the house from where the recovery of money is consequently made is also admissible under section 8 of the Evidence Act.
75. So far as non examination of public witness as contended by defence counsel at the time of recovery of the amount at the instance of accused Raj Kumar and Mohd. Majid. It may be noted here that Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in State Vs. Navin Ahuja (HC) in Crl. A 1435/10 has observed as under :
76. " As far as not joining public witnesses at the time of recovery of pistol is concerned, the Court recollects that there is really no such legal pre requisite. [Ref. State, (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v. Sunil & Anr.
(2001) 1 SCC 652, which held that there is no requirement in law either under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act or under SC No 71/12 Page 69/75 SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc Section 161 CrPC to obtain signatures of independent respectable persons of the locality on the statement made by the accused.]
77. Similarly non production of blood stained shirt of PW1 Deepak which was seized by the IO is not going to effect the prosecution case in view of the eye witness account of PW1 that he was kidnapped by accused persons. Such non production of blood stained shirt is not going to effect the prosecution case. Similarly, the contention of the counsel for the defence that conduct of accused persons as alleged is wholly unnatural as the accused person after kidnapping victim from Dwarka went towards Bahadurgarh and came to Dwarka bia Bawana so the conduct of accused in roaming with victim crossing Delhi boarder and again coming to Delhi is wholly unnatural but this contention is also neither here nor there as the vagaries of human mind cannot be anticipated by any person and how the accused persons will behave cannot be anticipated in any straight jack formula. So nothing is unnatural in the conduct of the SC No 71/12 Page 70/75 SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc accused persons in kidnapping the victim in his own car and making a call to his father and there is a connectivity between the mobile phone of PW2 and PW1 as detailed in para No. 47 and there are so many calls which have been received on both the phones in the dead of night so such connectivity between the mobile phone of PW2 Suresh Kumar and PW1 Deepak are corroborates the testimony of these witnesses and is also bound to raise an accusing figure against the accused persons.
78. The inter se connectivity amonst the mobile phones of accused persons as detailed in Para No.47 and recovery of phone No. 98715344092 and 9582879318 were got recovered from the personal search of accused Raj Kumar incriminates the accused. Therefore, it can be inferred that accused Raj Kumar was using the mobile bearing No. C and accused Mohd. Majid was using the mobile phone bearing No. D and other coaccused were using the remaining mobile numbers and the cell ID chart of these mobile phone numbers proved in terms of Ex. PW6/H also leads to the irresistible conclusion the SC No 71/12 Page 71/75 SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc that accused persons were in the area of Matiala at the time of kidnapping and in his examination under section 313 Cr.PC, accused had not stated anything that they were having dialogue amongst themselves through the said mobile phones also leads to the irresistible conclusion that accused persons amongst themselves were connected through the above said mobile numbers in the night on the fateful day.
79. The prosecution has proved on record that the victim PW1 Deepak was kidnapped and thereafter, accused persons Raj Kumar and Mohd. Majid alongwith co accused Yusuf and Sagar who are still not apprehended started demanding ransom and PW2 Suresh Kumar Singhal came at Vardhman Plaza market near DPS and accused Raj Kumar deboarded the car driven by PW1 near pillar No. 750 and other coaccused deboarded the said car near Vardhman market and after getting ransom amount, fled away. In the meantime, PW5 Aashish informed the PCR officials, standing near Vardhman Mkt. and PW9, incharge of PCR van chased the said car upto sector12 and, thereafter, said car disappeared and the PCR officials flashed the message to the control room. After recording the said message vide Ex. PW13/A informed the concerned PS and PW3 recorded the said SC No 71/12 Page 72/75 SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc information vide DD Ex. PW3/A. Thereafter, accused Raj Kumar was apprehended on 04.03.2012 and got recovered an amount of Rs.1,12,500/ and, thereafter, accused Mohd. Majid was arrested and from his personal search, an hefty amount was recovered. The accused failed to offer any explanation as to why they were having such huge amount and from which source. DWs had not made any complaint to the higher officers regarding handing over of an amount of Rs. 1.25 lacs to PW19/IO as their son Raj Kumar was not let off by IO after giving the said amount. No reliance can be placed upon the testimony of Dws, so far as, false implication of accused persons.
80.While it is true that the police should not involve innocent persons, fabricate evidence and obtain convictions, it is equally true that cases in which substratum of the prosecution case is strong and substantiated by reliable evidence, lapses in investigation should not persuade the court to reject the prosecution case. The court with its vast experience should be quick to notice mischief if there is any. Incompetent prosecuting agencies or prosecuting agencies which are driven by extraneous considerations should not be allowed to take the court for a ride. The courts will have to adopt a pragmatic approach. No scope must be given to absured and fanciful submissions. It is true that there can be no compromise SC No 71/12 Page 73/75 SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc on basic legal principles, but, unnecessary weightage should not be given to minor errors or lapses. If courts get carried away by every mistake or lapse of the investigating agency, the guilty will have a field day. The submissions relating to alleged discrepancies in the manner of kidnapping, place of occurrence, sequence of events, call for ransom made by accused and his father for negotiation of ransom amount as well as for chasing of Honda City car by PCR van etc, are, therefore, rejected.
81. It is obligatory on the part of the accused while being examined U/s 313 CrPC to furnish some explanation with respect to the incriminating circumstances associated with him and the court must take note of such explanation, even, in case of circumstantial evidence, in order to decide as to whether or not the chain of circumstances is complete when the attention of the accused is drawn to the circumstances that inculpate him in relation to the commission of crime and he fails to offer an appropriate explanation with respect to the same, the said act may be considered as providing a missing link for completing the chain of circumstance. In this regard & found support from State of Maharashtra Vs Suresh (2000) 1 SCC 471, Musheer Khan VS State of M.P.(2010) 2 SCC 748.
82. It may be noted here that PW1 is injured witness and his testimony is having much evidentiary value then of SC No 71/12 Page 74/75 SC No -71/12 FIR No 54/12 P.S Binda pur St. Vs. Raj Kumar etc an ordinary witness. Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused. The evidence of an injured witness has a greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly. The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions. If there be any contradiction, exaggeration and immaterial embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence.
83. From the above discussion, I am of the opinion that prosecution has been successful in bringing home the guilt of the accused persons and that the accused persons had committed the offence in question and accused persons had committed an offence under section 364A/34 IPC.
84. Put up for order on sentence on 31.01.2014.
Announced in the open Court on 30th January 2014 ( Dr. Vijay Kumar Dahiya) ASJ02/Dwarka Courts New Delhi/30.01.2014 SC No 71/12 Page 75/75