Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs Asif Saifi on 16 April, 2025

         IN THE COURT OF SH. PANKAJ ARORA: ADDL.
          SESSIONS JUDGE-04: NORTH-EAST DISTRICT:
               KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI

SESSIONS CASE No. 214/18
CNR No. DLNE01-002800-2018
FIR No. 126/18
P.S.: Bhajanpura
U/s : 364A of IPC

STATE

                                 Versus

ASIF SAIFI
s/o Sh. Sahabuddin
r/o Mohalla Brahmpuri,
Dadri, Distt. Guatam Budh Nagar, UP


Date of Institution :    07-07-2018
Date of Argument :       03-04-2025
Date of Judgment :       16-04-2025


JUDGMENT

1. Brief facts of this case are that on 12-03-2018, the complainant Dilshad Ahmad came at PS Bhajanpura and got his complaint lodged before the Investigating Officer (hereinafter referred to as IO) ASI Harkesh Kumar. The complainant stated that he was residing along with his family at B-14/75, Gali no. 11, Subhash Mohalla, Delhi and he was owner of medical store at Mustafabad. On 12-03-2018 at about 2:15 pm, his minor son 'A' (name radacted for the sake of privacy), aged 5 years old, colour wheatish, height 2.5 feet, having front tooth broken and defect in his eye, was playing outside his home. The child was wearing FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 1 of 53 sky blue colour jeans and orange colour sandow baniyan and orange colour sandles in his feet. At about 2:30 pm, he received phone call of his wife, who stated that 'A' was playing outside the home but now he was not there. He along with his family members started searching the child, however, despite efforts, no clue about his missing child came forward. On the basis of above-stated statement of complainant, present FIR came to be registered for the offence punishable u/s 363 of IPC and the investigation was marked to ASI Harkesh Kumar (hereinafter referred to as first IO). WT message was flashed on Zipnet and hue and cry message was sent. Efforts were made to trace the missing child at his home and CCTV cameras of the area were scanned. Despite efforts, no clue about missing child came forward. On 13-03-2018, the complainant came at PS and stated that he had received a phone call on his mobile phone 9250125135 from another mobile phone no. 9267992893, and the caller stated that his son was in his safe custody and the complainant can receive his son from him and for that the complainant had to hand over Rs. 20 lakhs at NTPC Dhaulana, Dadri, UP. The caller further stated to him that he would call him again and some relative of complainant had given him custody of the child. After some time, the complainant received another phone call from the same mobile number and this time some other person spoke to him and informed to him that his name is Laxman Sharma and residing at Dadri, UP. A few minutes earlier, one unknown person had borrowed his mobile phone on the pretext that his phone was running out of balance and he had to make an urgent call. Upon which, Laxman Sharma handed over his mobile phone and thereafter that person called the FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 2 of 53 complainant from the mobile phone of Laxman Sharma. Laxman Sharma also revealed that the above-stated person was accompanied with a small child due to which he became suspicious. Laxman Sharma also asked the complainant to call the police but the complainant refused as he was scared. The above-stated developments were informed to SHO concerned, who further brought the same to the knowledge of ACP Gokalpuri and thereafter, Section 364A of IPC was added and the investigation was marked to SI Arun Kumar (hereinafter referred to as second IO). Immediately, the mobile phones of complainant and Laxman Sharma were put on surveillance. The second IO contacted Laxman Sharma on his mobile phone and proceeded towards village Chapraula, Dadri, UP along with police staff, where Laxman Sharma s/o Govind Sharma met the IO. The IO conducted inquiry from Laxman Sharma, who revealed that on 13-03-2018 at about 9-9:15 am, he was going to KRBL, Rice Mill for some work. On the way, one unknown person met him and that person borrowed his mobile phone on the pretext that his mobile phone was running low in balance and he had to make an urgent call, whereupon Laxman Sharma agreed to hand over his phone to that person. Thereafter, that unknown person had made one phone call. That person was accompanied with a small child due to which Laxman Sharma became suspicious and that is why he made another call on the same number which was dialed by the unknown person and informed the entire facts to the recipient. He had also asked to stop the unknown person by calling the police, to which the complainant refused as he was scared. Laxman Sharma also informed that recipient of the call was one Dilshad and that FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 3 of 53 unknown person had kidnapped his child and made a ransom call of Rs. 20 lakhs. Laxman Sharma further stated that he had made efforts to trace that unknown person but he had left from there. The second IO joined Laxman Sharma in the investigation of the present case and made efforts to trace that unknown person/kidnapper nearby the place where Laxman Sharma met him. The CCTV cameras of the nearby shops and dhabas were checked but no clue came forward. In the evening at about 4- 4:30 pm, the complainant Dilshad received one phone call from mobile number 9873650529 and the caller inquired from him about arrangement of money. The second IO immediately obtained the location of mobile number 9873650529, which was traced at Dadri bus stand, UP. Without wasting time, the second IO along with staff and Laxman Sharma proceeded towards Dadri bus stand where Laxman Sharma had pointed out towards one person sitting in an auto and identified that person to be the kidnapper in the present case. Thereafter, the IO with the help of staff overpowered the accused and from his possession, the missing child was recovered. That person revealed his name as Asif Saifi s/o Shahabuddin (accused herein). The accused was interrogated and during interrogation, he confessed about his involvement in the present case and narrated in detail about the circumstances and the manner in which he had induced the missing child to accompany him, revealed the place where he took the missing child along with him and narrated all the incidents that had taken place till he was apprehended. The accused was arrested and on next day, he was produced in the concerned court from where his two days PC remand was obtained. Thereafter, accused had pointed out the place from FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 4 of 53 where the missing child was kidnapped by him. The accused led the police party to Dadri bus stand, UP and pointed out the cloth shop from where he purchased T-shirt for the missing child for Rs. 60. The owner of the said shop namely Vinod Kumar Gautam also joined the investigation and identified the accused and stated that on 12-03-2018 at about 5-5:30 pm, accused came to his shop along with the child and purchased a T-shirt from his shop. Thereafter, the accused led the police party to a place behind Dadri Anaj Mandi. Thereafter, accused pointed out towards a room situated on the agricultural fields where the kidnapped child was kept by him overnight. On 16-03-2018, the accused was produced in the concerned court and his JC remand was obtained. On 20-03-2018, the IO got recorded statement u/s 164 Cr. P.C. of child in the concerned court. After completion of necessary formalities, the chargesheet was filed in the court for the offence punishable u/s 364A of IPC.

COMMITTAL

2. After taking cognizance and compliance of section 207 of Cr.P.C., the present case was committed to the Courts of Sessions vide order dated 30-06-2018 by the Ld. MM/NE/KKD. The same was allocated by the then Ld. District and Sessions Judge to the Ld. Predecessor of this Court.

CHARGE

3. After hearing the arguments and finding that prima facie case was made out against the accused for the offence punishable u/s 364A of IPC, charge was framed by ld. Predecessor against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, prosecution got examined as many as 13 witnesses. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 5 of 53

4. (i) PW-1 ASI Ravinder was the Duty Officer posted at PS Bhajanpura at the relevant time. He has proved the rukka prepared by the IO as Ex. PW1/A; endorsement made by him on the rukka as Ex. PW1/B; copy of FIR as Ex. PW1/C; certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act regarding proper maintenance of computer system as Ex. PW1/D and DD no. 7A pertaining to the process of registration of FIR as Ex. PW1/E. In his cross-examination by Sh. Javed Ali, Ld. Counsel for accused, he affirmed that investigation was not assigned to ASI Harkesh in his presence. He also did not know at what time it was assigned. It is affirmed that certificate u/s 65(B) of LE. Act does not show any date when it was issued by him. It is affirmed correct that the detail of computer system has not been mentioned by him in the said certificate. It is affirmed that anybody can use the computer system. Again said the operator uses the computer system. He denied the suggestion that there is no password in the computer. He denied the suggestion that contents of FIR have been manipulated. At the time of recording the contents of FIR, operator, DD writer and himself were present. At that time, IO SI Harkesh and complainant Dilshad were also present there. It is affirmed that complainant Dilshad had not stated a single fact regarding FIR in his presence. He denied the suggestion that he has not issued any certificate u/s 65(B) of I.E.Act or that he deposed falsely with regard to manipulation of contents of the FIR. He denied the suggestion that FIR is ante dated and ante time.

(ii) PW2 Sh. Dilshad Ahmad was the complainant in the present case. He deposed that he has been residing at aforesaid address alongwith his family since his childhood. He was FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 6 of 53 running his medical store in the name and style of Lovely Medicos situated at street no.19, 25 foota road, New Mustafabad, Delhi. He has two sons and one daughter and their names are Azhar aged about 5 years, Kumari Mahira aged about 3½ years and Master Mohd. Bilal aged about 4 months.

On 12.03.2018 at about 2:00 pm he was coming to his home for lunch from his shop when he was on the way he received phone call of his wife that his son Azhar is missing who was playing in gali in front of their house. He reached at his home and found his wife busy in search of his missing son Azhar in the mohalla. He also made search of his aforesaid missing son with the help of his parents, brothers and neighbours in the area of Subhash Mohalla, Bhajanpura, Yamuna Vihar, Noor-e- Elahi etc but no clue come forward about his missing son Azhar.

On the evening of same day, he reached at PS Bhajanpura and lodged missing report of his son Azhar. He had also told to police that his son is missing from 2.30 pm. He was wearing sky blue jeans pant, orange colour sandow baniyan and orange colour sandle. One police official had recorded his statement at PS which is Ex.PW2/A. Police registered FIR on his aforesaid statement and demanded photograph of his son which he had provided to police.

PW2 added that Police had visited his house and made interrogation from public persons in respect of his missing son but no clue come forward. He had shown the place from where his son was playing and lastly seen by his wife i.e. in a gali in front of their house. On the night of same day, during search of his missing son police official had also checked the CCTV footage which were installed at the house of his neighbour whose FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 7 of 53 house is at a distance of about 30 fts from his house. Thereafter police also checked the CCTV footage of one other person who was residing in gali no.10. It came into their notice from the aforesaid CCTV footage which was played by owner of house that his son Azhar was taken by one person from that gali and the person who was taking away his son had come in that gali alongwith one other associate. He had told to police that kidnappers were not known to him when police asked after seeing the CCTV footage. Police official had copied relevant portion of CCTV footage in 3-4 mobile phones including his mobile phone. Thereafter police went to PS and he returned to his house. Accused present in court is the same person who was accompanying the kidnapper. Accused Asif had not taken his son, he was alongwith kidnapper and kidnapper had come in gali no. 10. PW2 correctly identified accused Asif Ali as associate of kidnapper. PW2 further stated that accused Asif Ali had not been seen by him prior to checking the CCTV footage and he had also not been seen by him thereafter. He volunteered that he had seen accused Asif in the office of DCP when his son was brought by the police there and he was called by the IO.

PW2 further testified that at about 5.30 p.m., he reached at the office of DCP as he had received his phone call at his phone. In those days, he was using phone having sim connection no. 9250125135. At about 6.00 p.m., 2-3 gypsy of police officials came in the office of DCP. 3-4 police officials had brought his son in the office of DCP and remaining police officials were available in their vehicle. Some police officials had also brought accused Asif in the office of DCP and he was produced before DCP.

PW2 correctly identified accused Asif present in court. PW2 further stated that DCP had made inquiry from him and accused Asif in his room and asked as to whether he knew the accused Asif, to which he replied that he had never seen him. Police officials had told him that his son/victim Azhar Ahmed was recovered from accused Asif from bus stand, Dadri, U.P. He had received phone call at about 9/9.15 a.m. on 13.03.2018. Caller had made call at his phone having sim connection no.9250125135. Caller had made call with sim connection no.9267996823 and caller had asked him as to whether he was Dilshad to which he replied that he was Dilshad speaking. Caller had also asked him as to whether his son is missing to which he replied that his son is missing. He asked the name of the caller from him to which the caller did not disclose his name and told him that his son was in his custody. Caller had assured him that his son would be handed over to him after payment of Rs.20 lacs. Caller further warned him not to disclose this fact to anybody including police. Caller again told that he is indulged in kidnapping of children for demanding money and he had given him time till evening for handing over the payment of Rs. 20 lacs at a place NTPC, Dholana, U.P. He further directed him to come alone and also guided him to come on his scooty. Caller had warned him not to disclose this fact to anyone otherwise he would finish his son. He also requested the caller that he want to talk with his son and then he allowed his son to talk with him on phone. When he asked his son about his whereabouts then his son told him that he is with his Chachu. On this, he had told him that he would first discuss the matter at home with his family and then he would inform to him (caller). He asked from the caller FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 9 of 53 about his phone on which he can be available. The caller told him that he is using phone number of some other person and he had arranged the phone from someone to make aforesaid call. The caller told him that he would make a call to him at about 4.00 p.m.on the same day. He discussed the matter with his family. He received phone call of caller at about 4.15 p.m. on 13.03.2018 on his aforesaid phone and the caller had used sim connection no.9873650529 and asked from him about the time of reaching at NTPC. He requested him to grant some more time as he could not arrange the amount of Rs.20 lacs, but the caller refused to grant him time and stated that in case he did not provide them the amount then the child would not come back to him nor the caller would make call to him. He started weeping on phone and again requested to grant some time for arranging the amount. Caller thereafter on his repeated requests granted time till morning. Thereafter, he had given phone number of caller which had been used by him to DCP on the same day evening at about 4.20/4.30 pm. DCP Sh. Meena Beeta II had made call on the phone number given by him to caller again and again. Thereafter, he returned to his home.

PW2 further deposed that at about 5.00 p.m. when he was on the way, he received phone call of DCP on his phone and asked him to visit his office. He did so. It was told to him by DCP that with the help of mobile number given by him to him, his child has been recovered and police officials are about to come alongwith the child. At about 6/6 15 p.m. police officials had brought his son as well as accused Asif Saifi in the office of DCP in his presence. His son has been handed over to him vide handing over memo as Ex.PW 2/B which bears his signatures at FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 10 of 53 point A. He had forwarded the voice records of the caller to the phone of IO Arun Kumar on whatsapp as the same had been directed him to do so. His phone having the said voice records was in his possession till then. After about 15-20 days, again said after about 1 month, he had produced victim before Ld.MM as per advice of the IO and on that day, statement of victim was recorded by the Ld.MM.

PW2 claimed that he had received three calls of different caller on his phone from the same number on 13.03.2018. First call was received at about 9/9.15 a.m., second call was made at about 9.25 a.m. and at that time caller had disclosed his name as 'Laxman' and at the third time, call was received at about 9.30 am. It was told to him by aforesaid Laxman that someone had demanded his phone to make call as caller had requested Laxman that he did not have any balance in his phone and he has to make an urgent call to someone. Laxman had further told him that he had some suspicion upon the caller about possessing one child. Laxman also told him that he has a shop nearby the calling place and also told him that he could apprehend the caller as he was being accompanied with 4-5 persons. He further told that one PS is nearby and he could call some police official from the said PS. PW2 further revealed that he had joined the investigation with police officials on the intervening of 15/16.03.2018. Police took him and accused to PS Dadri where entries were made by the police. One police official was taken from that PS. Accused Asif Saifi led them at his house. Family members of accused were interrogated and information about his arrest was given to them. It was also told by one police official of PS Dadri before FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 11 of 53 Delhi Police official that accused had also attempted to kidnap some child about 20 days/one month ago as that matter was reported there. Thereafter, accused Asif Saifi led them at a place where he had kept his son on the intervening night of 12/13.03.2018 and he had shown him the place. Thereafter, they returned to Delhi and since then, accused was running in J/C. In his cross examination, he was cross examined by the Ld. Defence counsel but nothing material came on record.

(iii) PW3 Vinod Kumar Gautam deposed that he has been residing along with his family in village Badpura, Dadri, Gautam Budh Nagar, UP since childhood. He is post graduate in commerce and running his business to sell ready-made clothes on pavement at Ghanshyam Road near Holika Dahan, Dadri.

On 15.03.2018 at about 3:00 pm, one person was brought by the police at his aforesaid Thiya. The name of police official was Arun. He had asked him whether person who was in custody had come at his shop or not. He had replied him that so many persons used to come at his thiya to purchase the clothes and identification of all customer was not possible to him. On his asking about the person who was with him, he replied that he did not know him. Thereafter, aforesaid police official further told him that the person who was in custody had come on his thiya on 12.03.2018. Police official further told him that he had sold T- shirt to the person who was in custody after receiving Rs.60/- while he had told the cost of T-shirt a sum of Rs.90/-.

Witness pointed out towards accused standing in dock saying that he was the person to whom he had sold the T-shirt on 12.03.2018 but at that time he was not having beard. Witness again said after seen the witness that perhaps accused was the FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 12 of 53 person whom he sold the T-shirt on 12.03.2018. When he had sold the aforesaid T-shirt to the accused, one child wearing baniyan was with the accused.

Witness was shown Master Azhar, after having seen the boy, witness submitted that he could not say with certainty but it was a child of 4-5 years in dirty condition.

The witness was cross-examined by ld. Defence counsel. To a court question as to whether the accused standing in the dock was the same person who purchased T-shirt on 12/03/2018, he stated that 'halka halka sa wahi lag raha hai'.

(iv) PW-4 Master 'A' s/o Sh. Dilshad Ahmed, aged about 6 years is the kidnapped child in the present case. His statement was recorded in the Vulnerable Witness Deposition Room No. 77 in presence of support person Ms. Sandhya Singh, Advocate and the accused was sitting in the room meant for accused. Witness was in a position to see the accused and hear his voice.

Certain preliminary questions were asked from the witness to ascertain his competency to depose in the court. On being satisfied, from the answers of witness, his statement was recorded without oath.

PW4 deposed that he was playing in his gali. Ayan had come and took him to his house after giving CHEESE / K-stick to him. One person took him to a big house on foot where he kept him on a bed. That house had a big gate. He had also brought bike and took him there. His father along with one or two persons reached there and he had brought back him. He had taken food with that person at another house.

When he was taken, he was wearing baniyan. The person who had taken him had purchased blue T-shirt for him on the FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 13 of 53 way. That person had not made any promise or said to him anything.

After seeing the accused present in court, the witness submitted that he is Ayan and he had taken him and also purchased T-shirt for him. PW4 further stated that he had milk in the morning in that big house. When he was brought from big house by the police with his father, no other person was with them. Again said, Ayan was also brought to Delhi with them. Again said, they were brought to Delhi in Swift car and Ayan was sitting in the car on rear seat. His statement was recorded by one Madam after some day from his return at his house.

The witness identified his signature on the statement Ex. PW4/A at point A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4.

During cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, he affirmed that his father had told him to identify Ayan/ chacha. Again said, he had identified the Chacha/ Ayan of his own and his father had not told him to identify him.

(v) PW-5 Ct. Rohit Kumar was the investigating police official who had joined the investigation with IO / SI Arun Kumar on 13-03-2018 after registration of FIR when the complainant came at PS and reported about ransom call received by him. He was also a member of raiding team which proceeded to Dhaulana, Dadri, UP, near NTPC Dadri in search of the missing child. He deposed on the same lines on which IO SI Arun Kumar (PW13) has deposed, whose testimony shall be dealt with later on.

In his cross examination, he was cross examined by the Ld. Defence counsel but nothing material came on record.

(vi) PW6 Master Laxman Sharma S/o Sh. Govind Sharma FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 14 of 53 aged about 17 years is the independent witness from whose mobile phone, the call was made by the accused. His statement was recorded in the Vulnerable Witness Deposition Room No. 77 in presence of support person Ms. Himani Gupta, Advocate and the accused was sitting in the room meant for accused. Witness was in a position to see the accused and hear his voice.

Certain preliminary questions were asked from the witness to ascertain his competency to depose in the court. On being satisfied, from the answers of witness, his statement was recorded on oath.

PW6 deposed that in the year 2018, he was studying in class Xth in Janta Inter College, Village Roza, Jalalpur, Distt. Gautambudh Nagar (UP). He did not remember the date but it was 7th or 8th month of the year 2018. It was about 9-9.15 am, he had gone for some work to Kanch (glass) Company near KRBL (Rice Mill), at that time when he reached there Asif (kidnapper), whose name he came to know later on, met him there with child. He requested him to make a call from his mobile phone to the mother of the child. He gave his mobile phone to him. After that, he made a call from his mobile phone to someone after going some distance away from him. At that time, the said person was saying on mobile phone that "Bachcha mere pass hai" and he had also got the child talked with his mobile phone. Thereafter, Asif handed over his mobile phone to him. He also told him not to talk on this number anymore. After that, he left from there with the child. He suspected something wrong, hence he re-dialed the same number and at that time Asif was watching towards him. When he re-dialed the person who picked up the call from other side, he asked from that person whether he knew the person who FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 15 of 53 had talked him just before from this number. On this, it was replied from other side that his son had been missing from last 24 hours and the person who had talked with him was asking for ransom money. He told the said person that he should inform the police as there was police chowki in nearby but the said person denied to do so by saying do not indulge him in this matter. After that, he made a phone call to one of his known person and told him about the happening. He told him to stay there and keep watch on the said person and he was coming. In the meanwhile, two buses came and the Asif disappeared in between. Just after some time, his aforesaid known person Pinto Mavi came there and thereafter, they both tried to search for Asif but he could not be traced. Thereafter, they returned back at the shop of Pinto Mavi. After some time, he received a phone call from crime branch and the official of crime branch asked the location, they disclosed the same. Thereafter, within 1/ 1½ hours reached to them. Officer from crime branch made inquiry from him. He told the entire incident. After that, the police official took him to the place where he had seen Asif. Thereafter, police officer searched the CCTV footage of Camera installed at Royal City wherein the Asif was seen going with the child. After that, they tried to trace Asif and the child in the nearby area but they could not be found. Thereafter, they sat in the nearby hotel. After some time, police officials received the phone call from Dadri. After that, they reached at Dadri Bus Stand. At that time, they saw the kidnapper with the child while boarding in van type vehicle / Magic. While the kidnapper and child were in the process of boarding the vehicle, the police official first identified the child and get tried to apprehend the conductor of Magic vehicle. When the FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 16 of 53 conductor was apprehended by the police, he pointed out towards the actual kidnapper Asif who was trying to board on the said magic vehicle. Police official apprehended Asif at his instance. At the time of apprehension, no documentation were done by the police official and they left the place. The police official again came on next day and inquired from him. At the time of arrest, police official did not obtain his signature on any of the documents. His statement was recorded on the next day by the police officials.

After seeing the accused present in the court, the witness stated that he was unable to identify him as more than one year has passed and he had seen him only for ten minutes at that time.

He had not stated to the police officials anything else apart from the aforesaid facts.

The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State as he was resiling from his earlier statement made to the police. During cross-examination by ld. Addl. PP for State, he did no remember if his statement was recorded by the IO on 13.03.2018. He volunteered that his statement was recorded by the police on next day.

The statement of witness was shown to the witness and he admitted that it was his statement Ex. PW6/A. He admitted that recovery memo of child Azhar Ex. PW6/B bears his signature. Seizure memo of Motorola mobile phone Ex. PW6/C. He affirmed that seizure memo of purse Ex.PW6/D bears his signature at point A. He admitted that arrest memo of accused Asif Saifi Ex. PW6/E bears his signature at point A and personal search memo of accused Asif Saifi Ex.PW6/F bears his signature at point A. FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 17 of 53 He admitted that he had mentioned his mobile number to the IO as 9267992893. He admitted that on 13.03.2018 when the kidnapper had met him, he asked his mobile phone saying that uske phone me balance khatam ho gaya hai mujhe ek phone karwa do, urgent hai. He admitted that when he demanded back his mobile phone from the kidnapper, after giving his mobile, phone, the kidnapper starting going away hurriedly. He admitted that after receiving back his mobile phone from the kidnapper when he had redialed the said number, the person who had received the call had told his name to his as Dilshad. He admitted that at that time the said person Dilshad had told him that the said kidnapper kidnapped his son and demanded ransom money from him. He admitted that when he had received call of IO after some time, IO along with his team had arrived there. He admitted that CCTV cameras installed on the roadside were checked by the IO. He admitted that in the evening time when he had seen the kidnapper alongwith the child sitting in an auto at which he was apprehended by the police team and the child was rescued from the said kidnapper. He admitted that at that time he had come to know the name of kidnapper as Asif Saifi S/o Sahbuddin r/o Mohalla Brahmpuri, Dadri, Distt. Gautambudh Nagar (UP). He admitted that at that time kidnapper Asif Saifi was arrested by the police. He denied that he had signed the arrest paper of accused on the same day. He did not remember whether his statement was recorded on 13.03.2018. Witness was confronted with statement Ex.PW6/A where date of recording of the statement was mentioned as 13.03.2018.

The photograph of child appearing on the photocopy of hue and cry notice of the child Azhar Ahmed s/o Dilshad Ahmed FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 18 of 53 Mark X attached to the police file was shown to the witness and he stated that the child appearing on the photograph was the same who was recovered from the kidnapper.

At the time of incident when he had seen the kidnapper, he was not having any beard or mustache and he was clean shaved. He volunteered that due to lapse of time, he was not in a position to identify the kidnapper.

He admitted that he could not sell some of the facts earlier in his examination in chief as he forgot the same but he recollected the same on being pointed out to him. He denied that he had singed the arrest papers and other documents i.e. Ex. PW6/B to Ex. PW6/F on 13.03.2018 at the time of arrest of accused. He denied that he was deliberately not identifying the accused as he had been won over by him.

During cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, he deposed that his mobile phone was never seized by the police. He affirmed that police had checked the CCTV footages of Royal City Society but accused Asif was not seen in those footages. He affirmed that police officials did not seize the DVR of the CCTV footages in his presence nor statement of person who was maintaining that DVR was recorded.

(vii) PW7 Ct. Devender deposed that on 13.03.2018 he was posted at PS Bhajanpura as constable. On that day he joined the investigation of the present case along with SI Arun. Complainant Dilshad came to PS and stated that he had received a call that the caller was having his son and demanded a sum of Rs.20 lacs and asked him to come at NTPC Dhaulana Dadri with ransom amount. Dilshad further stated that after some time he received a call from one Laxman that the caller had made a call FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 19 of 53 to Dilshad from his phone(Laxman). Laxman disclosed that the caller was having a child.

SI Arun informed to SHO and ACP regarding the same. Thereafter, he along with SI Arun, ASI Harkesh, Ct. Amit, Ct. Rohit and Ct Anwar and complainant visited village Dhaulana. SI Arun made a call to Laxman who met at his village. SI Arun inquired from Laxman. He along with other staffs including complainant and Laxman made a search of accused and kidnapped child. Meanwhile, complainant received a phone call of ransom. The mobile phone of the complainant was on surveillance and location of the mobile phone through which the ransom call was made found at Bus Stand Dadri, UP. Laxman saw and identified the kidnapper while he was sitting in an auto. Accused Asif Saifi was apprehended with the help of their staff and kidnapped child was recovered from him. Accused was interrogated and on interrogation he came to know about the name of accused as Asif Salfi (present in court that day and correctly identified by the witness). PW7 further stated that disclosure statement of accused was recorded. He was arrested and his personal search was conducted. Statement of Laxman was recorded. Thereafter, PW7 along with other staff including complainant, recovered child and accused came to the PS. The recovered child was medically examined. Statement of PW7 was recorded.

During cross-examination by Addl. PP for State, PW7 affirmed that complainant stated that the caller had told him that his son was with him (kidnapper) and he is OK, he would get his son but he had to pay Rs.20 lacs at NTPC Dhaulana, Dadari UP and he would call again. The caller further told that he had FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 20 of 53 received the child of complainant from his relative and the caller also stated that he would call again. Complainant further stated that after some time he again received a call and this time, some other person had talked to him and stated that his name is Laxman Sharma and resided at Dadri, UP. Some time before, some one asked to give his mobile phone on the pretext that he had no balance in his phone and had to make an urgent call, on which Laxman had given his mobile phone and thereafter that person had talked to him through the mobile phone of Laxman. It is affirmed that they had visited at village Chhapraula near PNB GT Road Dadri UP, where Laxman Sharma met them. It is also affirmed that they made a search at nearby shops and checked CCTV footage which were installed at Dhaba.

During cross-examination by ld. Defence counsel, he affirmed that he had not stated the fact mentioned in his chief examination dated 01-04-2021 SI Arun informed to SHO and ACP regarding the same' in his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Laxman met them at bus stand of Dadri. Again said, he met them at village Chapraula. Laxman met them at around 03:45 PM. He did not know colour and description of Laxman worn at the time he met them. It is also affirmed that he had not stated the physical description of Laxman in his statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C.

It is affirmed that neither IO asked Laxman to show his identity card and address proof nor he himself produced any identity card and address proof to IO. He denied the suggestion that Laxman is planted witness and therefore, neither IO asked Laxman to show his identity card and address proof nor he himself produced any identity card and address proof to IO.

He did not remember the colour and description of the clothes worn by the accused at the time of apprehended.

He did not remember the colour and description of clothes, slipper worn by the kidnapped child and accused. He denied the suggestion that Laxman saw and identified the kidnapper. At around 4 pm, the accused was apprehended.

(viii) PW8 Ct. Amit deposed that on 13-03-2018, he was posted at PS Bhajanpura as Constable. On that day, he joined investigation in the present case along with IO/ SI Arun. Complainant Dilshad came at the PS at about 10-11 am and stated that he has received a phone call on his mobile phone, the number of which he did not remember, and the caller stated that, "tumhara bachha mere paas hai, sehkushal hai, aur agar tum Dadri aa jaogo 20 lakh rupey lekar to mein appko bachha de dunga, mein dubara se phone karunga". The complainant further stated that he called back to the caller after about 10-15 minutes and then the caller stated that, "mein Laxman bol raha hun aur mere phone se kisı saksh ne phone kiya tha, uske paas ek bachha bhi tha, jisne bataya tha ki wah ek urgent call karna chahta hai kyunki uska phone switched off hai". Thereafter, PW8 along with SI Arun, Ct. Amit, Ct. Anwar and complainant went to the spot ie, village Chapraula, near PNB, G.T. Road, Dadri, UP where they met one person namely Laxman. Thereafter, IO/SI Arun conducted inquiry from Laxman, who led them to the place where the kidnapper had made the above-stated phone call where they tried to search the CCTV camera but did not find any CCTV camera installed there. Then, they along with Laxman proceeded towards Dadri chowk in their car where Laxman pointed out towards a person who was in the process of getting into a three FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 22 of 53 wheeler. Then at the instance of Laxman, they apprehended that person and they noticed that one child was already sitting in the three wheeler. That person was interrogated, who revealed his name as Asif Saifi (identity of the accused was not disputed by the Ld. Defence counsel). The accused was arrested vide arrest memo already Ex. PW6/E and his personal search was conducted vide memo already Ex. PW6/F, both bearing his signature at point B. His disclosure statement was recorded vide memo Ex. PW8/A bearing his signature at point A. Then, they took the accused as well as the child to the PS. During cross-examination by ld. Defence counsel, he deposed that he remained with the IO during the investigation on 13-03-2018 from 10-11 am to 10-11 pm. He was patrolling in beat area when the complainant had come in PS. Some munshi namely Ct. Devender had made a phone call to inform me between 10 to 11 am that one person Dilshad came in PS. He cannot tell his mobile number. He denied the suggestion that no phone call was ever made by Ct. Devender to him or that he deposed falsely and therefore, he cannot tell his mobile number.

He did not make any departure entry. He volunteered that IO might have made departure entry. He cannot tell the time when the departure entry was made. He had put his signature on his statement and had also appended the date below his signature.

He could not tell the room number situated in PS, in which complainant had narrated the facts regarding alleged phone call and its contents. The complainant remained with the IO in the said room for around 2 to 2½ hours. He did not remember whether the DCP was present in PS or not. It is also affirmed that he cannot tell what was the talk between complainant and IO in FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 23 of 53 the said room for around 2 to 2½ hours.

He could not tell the make, model, colour and company of his mobile phone which was used by him on 13-03-2018. Vol.- he used only one mobile number. It is affirmed that he had not made any phone call to anyone in respect of present case on 13- 03-2018. He also could not tell as to whom the IO had made phone call or received call from anyone. He denied the suggestion that he had never accompanied with the IO therefore, he cannot tell as to whom he IO had made phone call or received call from anyone.

He could not tell the colour and description of the clothes and the Slipper the child was wearing on 13-03-2018. He also cannot tell the colour and description of the clothes and the slipper worn by Asif Saifi on 13-03-2018. On 13-03-2018, accused Asif Saif was having beard and mustache. It is affirmed that IO did not make any inquiry at Dadri and Chapraula and G.T. Road in his presence from anyone. He volunteered that he stated that IO had asked from the people of dhabas if they have seen any child. He denied the suggestion that IO did not record statement of anyone in his presence.

It is affirmed that Laxman had not shown his identity or address card to IO in his presence. He cannot tell the number and description of the auto as deposed by him in his examination- in-chief. IO did not record statement of auto driver.

He did not know the name of person who reported their arrival at nearby PS in Dadri but he was Duty Constable/ officer in rank.

Laxman was left in main Dadri at around 4:30-5 pm but he did not know the exact place. They did not prepare any document FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 24 of 53 when Laxman left our company.

(ix) PW9 HC Manish deposed that on 12-03-2018, he was on emergency duty along with ASI Harkesh at PS Bhajanpura. In the evening, the complainant came to PS and told them that his child was missing since morning time around 10-11 am. The IO/ ASI Harkesh recorded his statement and FIR was got registered. Thereafter, ASI Harkesh got issued WT message etc. regarding missing child. Thereafter, he along with ASI Harkesh and complainant went to the spot of occurrence and made search of child in the nearby area, however, the child was not found. Thereafter, ASI Harkesh recorded supplementary statement of complainant at his house. Thereafter, he along with IO/ ASI Harkesh returned to PS. He further deposed that on 13-03-2018, he joined the IO / SI Arun. He was also a member of raiding team which proceeded to Dhaulana, Dadri, UP, near NTPC Dadri in search of the missing child and conducted raid for recovery of missing child. He deposed on the same lines on which IO SI Arun Kumar (PW13) has deposed, whose testimony shall be dealt with later on.

In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel he stated that they had left for Dadri on 13.03.2018 at 12 to 12:30 pm. He did not have any knowledge if departure or arrival entry was made at any point of time.

To a question as to could he tell the place where Laxman met him, he replied village Chhapraula mein ek chota aour purana sa makan that wo wahin par mila tha.

He did not remember the street and mohalla where the said chota aur puran makan was situated.

He could not tell the colour and description of clothes of accused worn on that day. He also cannot tell the colour and description of clothes and slippers worn by child. He cannot tell the address the accused allegedly shown them. Vol. Said it was behind Dadri Mandi.

(x) PW10 HC Anwar was the investigating police official who had joined the investigation with IO / SI Arun Kumar on 13- 03-2018 after registration of FIR when the complainant came at PS and reported about ransom call received by him. He was also a member of raiding team which proceeded to Dhaulana, Dadri, UP, near NTPC Dadri in search of the missing child. He deposed on the same lines on which IO SI Arun Kumar (PW13) has deposed, whose testimony shall be dealt with later on.

In his cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, he stated that it was only one car. He cannot tell the registration number and model of said car. Vol. it was a white colour car. They had left at around 10/11 am on 13-03-2018 for Chapraula, Dadri, UP and reached there at around 1:30 to 1:45 pm. He did not remember as to who drove the said car. He did not make any departure entry in this regard. Vol. IO must be knowing about this.

He could not tell the colour and description of clothes worn by Laxman on 13-03-2018. He did not remember as to for how much time they stayed in the said street. He volunteered that they stayed for some time.

(xi) PW11 Retd. SI Harkesh Kumar deposed that on 12-03- 2018, he was posted as ASI at PS Bhajanpura. On that day, he was performing emergency duty from 8 am to 8 pm. At about 6 pm, one person namely Dilshad s/o Jamil Ahmad r/o Subhash FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 26 of 53 Mohalla, Jafrabad, Delhi came to PS and reported that his son Azhar, aged 5 years, height about 2½ foot, with one front broken tooh, having different vision in eyes, wearing sky blue colour pant, yellow colour sando baniyan and slippers was playing in the gali and was last seen at about 2:30 pm by his wife and thereafter, he was not seen and missing since then. They tried to search their child but could not locate him. He wrote a compliant and on the basis of that complaint, he prepared tehrir and handed over the same to Duty Officer for registration of FIR for the offence punishable u/s 363 of IPC. The Duty officer accordingly registered the FIR. Thereafter, he along with HC Manish went to the house of complainant, collected photographs of the missing child Azhar and carried out interrogation. They made efforts to search the missing child but no clue came forward. Thereafter, they came back to PS along with complainant. He filled Missing Form, flashed WT Message, uploaded the details of missing child on Zipnet, Hue and Cry Notice was issued. Finally reported about the state of affairs to the then SHO.

After about one hour, he again visited the house of complainant along with the complainant. They tried to search the missing child but no clue came forward throughout the night. As the child was under the age of 5, the SHO informed his senior officers and discussed the same and they continued the search throughout the night however, the child was not traced. Next morning at about 10:15 am, the complainant came to the PS and gave them a phone number and told that he had received a call from this number and the caller was demanding Rs. 20 lakhs in lieu of releasing the child. The caller further asked the complainant that he should bring the money at NTPC, Dadri, UP.

He discussed the same with the concerned SHO who further discussed with his senior officers. Accordingly, he was asked to add Section 364A of IPC and was asked to hand over the file to SI Arun for further investigation. Accordingly, he handed over the same to SI Arun.

Thereafter, at around 11/ 11:30 am, IO SI Arun prepared a raiding team consisting of PW11, Ct. Devender, Ct. Anwar, HC Manish, Ct. Rohit and himself apart from 2-3 more members whose names he did not remember. A CDR analyzing police team was working simultaneously in this case. Thereafter, they prepared for departing to Chaprula as the complainant told them that on his making the call back again on the same number, a person by the name Laxman picked up the call who told them that an unknown passersby had requested him to make a call and he further told his location at Chapraula. Accordingly, they reached Chapraula where they met with Laxman. IO made inquiries from Laxman. Thereafter, CCTV footage was checked in the nearby area, however, no footage was found. Thereafter, on the directions of IO, they went to Dadri bus stand where Laxman identified a person who had borrowed his phone to make a call and who was trying to sit in an autorickshaw and there was a child accompanying him also. They apprehended the said person and IO made inquiries from the said person whose name was revealed as Asif Saifi. The IO arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW6/E. The accused was personally searched vide memo Ex. PW6/F. The child was taken into custody. The accused was interrogated and thereafter, they returned back to PS. The child was handed over to the complainant i.e. father of child.

In his cross-examination by Ld. defence counsel, he affirmed that he did not record statement of complainant's wife who had allegedly last seen the child at about 2:30 pm. It is correct that he did not ask the places where the complainant had searched his missing child. It is also correct that he also did not ask the name and address of those people from whom he had contacted to trace or to find out his missing child. On 12.03.2018 at around 8 pm, he along with HC Manish went to the house of complainant where he met family members i.e his wife, his brothers, his uncle and neighbours in his home.

It is affirmed that they did not make any departure or arrival entry.

They had departed to Chapraula in two cars, both were private cars. He did not know the colour, model, make, registration number and their respective description. Both cars were having sitting capacity of five persons respectively. Both cars were driven by private drivers. The car in which he was sitting, HC Manish and two constables were also sitting in the same car but he did not remember their names. He did not know by whom the said cars were hired from which agency.

It is also affirmed that IO SI Arun did not check the call history of Laxman's mobile in his presence. The IO SI Arun had checked the CCTV camera on the shops which were situated on road side, adjacent to KBRL Mill but he did not remember their name and exact address. He did not know on which side the alleged autorickshaw was parked near Dadri Bus Stand. He did not know the registration number and colour of autorickshaw. Again said, the said authorickshaw was of black and yellow colour. He did not know the colour and description of the clothes FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 29 of 53 worn by the driver of alleged autorickshaw. No videography and photography was made by them.

He could not tell which site map was prepared by the IO even after seeing the court file. IO did not ask anyone from the bus stand or the passersby to join the investigation at the time of apprehending the accused. The arrest memo Ex. PW6/A does not bear his signature. It is affirmed that he had not signed any document till the time he remained with the IO SI Arun. After spending 45 minutes at Dadri bus stand, they all left for Delhi at around 7:15 pm. IO did not call any local police officials. It is affirmed that they did not go anywhere from Dadri bus stand except to Delhi. They had reached PS Bhajanpura at around 8 or 8:15 pm.

(xii) PW12 HC Ajay Kumar was the investigating police official who had accompanied the IO SI Arun Kumar, Ct. Amit and accused Asif Saifi during investigation conducted in the shop of one Vinod Kumar Gautam at Dadri bus stand, UP during PC remand of accused on 15-03-2018. He deposed on the same lines on which SI Arun Kumar has deposed regarding the proceedings conducted on the aforesaid place on 15-03-2018.

In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel he stated that SI Arun had asked him and Ct. Amit at around 2/02:30 pm to join the investigation in the present case orally in person. The departed from the PS at around 02:45 /3 pm in a car however, perhaps it was Innova car but he did not remember the colour and registration number of the said car.

He did not remember the colour of clothes worn by the shopkeeper on that day. He did not know whether IO had informed local police prior to or subsequent to reaching Dadri. It FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 30 of 53 is affirmed that accused was in muffled face. They remained present in the bus stand for about 3 to 3½ hours.

He denied the suggestion that he has cooked up false story in respect of making inquiry from rehriwalas and patriwalas and therefore, he cannot tell their names.

It is affirmed that no videography or photography of the place where the said patriwala was having his shop at bus stand was conducted. IO did not ask anyone the address of Vinod rehriwala while going to Dadri from Delhi. Vol. Vinod rehriwala himself revealed his address. It is affirmed that IO did not hand over any notice to Vinod Kumar Gautam to join the investigation in the present case. He denied the suggestion that shop-keeper did not identify the accused or that he has deposed falsely in respect of the same.

He cannot tell the distance of 12 bigha khet from Dadri bus stand. It took about half an hour in reaching to 12 bigha khet from Dadri bus stand. It is affirmed that no videography or photography of the said 12 bigha khet was conducted. It is also affirmed that no statement of the local people nearby 12 bigha khet was recorded by the IO. The said 12 bigha khet was not cultivated at that time. He did not know whether statement of Sewa Ram was recorded by the IO. The said small room was of the size of about 10 x 15 feet. The site plan of the said room was prepared by the IO. He did not know the contents of said site plan.

It is affirmed that he has not stated the factum of preparation of site plan of 12 bigha khet and small room in his statement u/s 161. His statement was recorded at 12 bigha khet. Again said, his statement was recorded at PS. FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 31 of 53 It is affirmed that he has not stated the factum of searching the owner namely Ram Pratap Rawal in a village in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C.

He denied the suggestion that neither they had visited any such place nor accused took them at any point of time to any 12 bigha khet. It is affirmed that neither the signature of Sewa Ram nor any independent person's signatures were obtained on pointing out memo Ex. PW12/A. IO had stated in the said pointing out memo Ex. PW12/A that the said 12 bigha khet belongs to Ram Pratap Rawal.

(xiii) PW13 SI Arun Kumar, D-5354, Anti-Narcotics Squad, District South-East, N. Delhi is the second IO of the present case. He deposed that on 13-03-2018, he was posted at PS Bhajanpura. On that day, the investigation of the present case was marked to him by the then SHO. At about 9:30-10 am, the complainant Dilshad came at PS and informed that he has received calls from unknown number i.e. 9267992893 on his mobile phone i.e. 9250125135 and the caller stated in his first call that, "tumhara bachha mere paas hai, Rs. 20 lakh lekar NTPC Dhaulana Dadri aa jao". After about 5 minutes, the caller made second call and stated that he is Laxman Sharma from Dadri and when he was present near KRBL Rice Mill, Dadri at about 9 - 9:15 am, one unknown person had made call from his mobile phone i.e. 9267992893 and that unknown person was accompanied by one child. That unknown person had borrowed his mobile phone on the pretext that account balance in his mobile phone was low and he had to make urgent call. Thereafter, complainant responded to the caller by stating that, "us anjan saksh ne mere bete ko kidnap kar rakha hai aur 20 lakh FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 32 of 53 rupey ke mang ki hai". Laxman Sharma (caller) stated to the complainant that he would call police but the complainant refused for the same. Thereafter, he personally called on the above-stated unknown mobile no. 9267992893 and spoke with Laxman Sharma, who had confirmed the facts revealed by the complainant. He intimated about the above-stated development to the then SHO thereafter on the directions of the then SHO, section 364A of IPC was added in the present FIR. A raiding team comprising himself, ASI Harkesh, HC Manish, HC Rajeev, Ct. Devender, Ct. Amit and one more member, whose name he did not now remember, was constituted. Thereafter, he along with the team proceeded towards Chapraula, G. T. Road, Dadri, UP in civil dress. They reached there at about 12-12:30 pm and met Laxman Sharma at his residence situated at Village Chapraula, G. T. Road, Dadri, near PNB Bank. He joined Laxman Sharma in the investigation and took him to KRBL, Rice Mill i.e. the place from where the ransom call was made to the complainant. He checked the CCTV footage in the nearby area but no clue regarding the incident narrated by Laxman Sharma came forward. They tried to search the missing child as well as the culprit in the nearby area but no clue came forward.

PW13 claimed that at about 4:30 pm, he received a call from the then SHO who informed him that the complainant Dilshad has received another unknown call from mobile no. 9873650529 and the caller inquired from the complainant as to whether he had arrangement of Rs. 20 lakhs as demanded by him or not. In reply thereto, the complainant had sought one day more time. Immediately, the then SHO had procured the location of mobile no. 9873650529 from the network service provider and FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 33 of 53 forwarded the same to him. The location provided by network service provider was of Dadri Bus Stand. He along with raiding team and Laxman Sharma immediately proceeded towards Dadri Bus Stand. Upon reaching Bus Stand at about 5 pm, they tried searching the culprit and the missing child. Within 5-7 minutes, Laxman Sharma had pointed out towards one person who was seated in one autorickshaw along with one child and stated that he was the person who had borrowed his mobile phone on 13-03- 2018 at near KRBL Rice Mill, Dadri. He with the help of raiding team overpowered that person and rescued the missing child. That person was interrogated, who revealed his name as Asif Saifi (correctly identified by PW13). PW13 added that accused Asif Saifi had confessed that he had kidnapped the missing child from Subhash Mohalla, Bhajanpura, Delhi. He arrested the accused at Dadri Bus Stand and conducted his personal search vide memos already Ex. PW6/E and Ex. PW6/F. He prepared the recovery memo of the missing child which is already Ex. PW6/B bearing his signature at point B. He recorded statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of Laxman Sharma vide Ex. PW6/A. Laxman Sharma was relieved and they along with the missing child and accused proceeded towards PS at Delhi. He got the medical examination of missing child conducted at JPC hospital and thereafter, he handed over custody of missing child to the complainant Dilshad, who was already present at the PS vide handing over memo already Ex. PW2/B. He interrogated the accused and recorded his disclosure statement which is already Ex. PW8/A. In his disclosure statement, accused stated that he had befriended the missing child about 2-3 days prior to the date of kidnapping and already conducted recce of the house of FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 34 of 53 missing child. While conversing with the missing child, the accused got to know about the financial status and family details of the missing child. On 09-03-2018, the accused had obtained the mobile number of complainant from his wife at his residence on the pretext that one Hajiji had asked mobile number of complainant. He also disclosed that on the date of kidnapping, he had lured one child in the locality by handing over Rs. 100 currency note to him and asked that child to call the missing child and that child accordingly, brought the missing child, thereby enabling the accused to kidnap the missing child.

On next day i.e. 14-03-2018, PW13 produced the accused before the court and obtained his two days PC remand. During PC remand, he tried to search the child who facilitated the accused in bringing the missing child before the accused but no clue came forward. On 15-03-2018, he along with Ct. Amit and HC Ajay took the accused to Dadri Police Station where he got recorded his arrival DD entry. Thereafter, they went to Dadri Bus Stand where accused had pointed out the rehri from where he had purchased T-shirt for the missing child. He visited that rehri and met the owner namely Vinod Kumar Gautam and recorded his statement, who had also confirmed the fact that the missing child along with accused had visited his rehri. The statement of Vinod Kumar Gautam is Ex. PW13/A. Thereafter, accused led them to a room situated in a field measuring 12 bigha, behind Dadri Anaj Mandi where he had confined the missing child on the nights of 12/13-03-2018. Pointing out memo of the said place was prepared which is already Ex. PW12/A. In the evening, he came back at PS. Next morning, he produced the accused before concerned court and he was sent to JC.

PW13 further claimed that on 20-03-2018, he moved an application for recording statement u/s 164 of Cr.P.C. of the missing child before Ld. MM vide Ex. PW13/B bearing his signature at point A, which was marked to the concerned Link MM. The statement was recorded by concerned Ld. Link MM on the same day. After completing the investigation, he prepared the chargesheet and filed the same before the concerned court.

In his cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel he affirmed that he did not take the voice sample of either complainant, accused or Laxman and any other person connected with the present case.

It is affirmed that he never seized the mobile phone of complainant. It is also affirmed that neither the complainant himself gave him screen shot of any phone calls he received nor he had asked him to furnish the same in respect of the present case. It is also affirmed that he did not get the CDR of mobile phone of complainant, accused and Laxman. It is affirmed that case of the prosecution is entirely based upon the alleged phone calls. It is affirmed that the complainant had never handed over any bill or invoice of mobile phone which he was allegedly using. It is affirmed that he did not prepare any site plan at any point of time.

He did not remember the colour and description of the clothes worn by Laxman Sharma on 13.03.2018. Neither he had shown his ID card nor he himself had seized the same for Laxman's identification at that time. He volunteered that later on he has taken his copy of Aadhar Card. He had not mentioned this fact in the chargesheet.

He had not mentioned this fact in the chargesheet. On FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 36 of 53 15.03.2018, they had departed to Dadri, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P by car. It was SUV white colour car but he cannot tell its registration number. The said car was having capacity of 5 persons. The said car was hired on rent by HC Ajay. It is affirmed that he had not mentioned in the chargesheet that the car which was departed to Dadri, Gautam Budh Nagar, UP was hired on rent by HC Ajay. They had left Dadri, Gautam Budh Nagar, UP approx. 09:30 AM or 10:00 AM.

It is affirmed that no photography and videography of the said field of 12 bigha and the room situate therein was ever conducted. 12 bigha khet me kuch me fasal thi aur kuch me fasal nahi thi. It is affirmed that accused Asif confrontation was not done with the local people of the place where the said /alleged 12 bigha field was situated.

It is affirmed that the statement of Sewa Ram mentioned in the chargesheet who had allegedly introduced himself the brother of owner of 12 bigha field was not recorded. It is affirmed that he did not obtain the Identity and address proof of the said person namely Sewa Ram.

He denied the suggestion that no person namely Sewa Ram exists or that he has falsely cooked up a false story in the chargesheet and therefore, neither he had recorded his statement nor obtained or asked him to furnish his identity or address proof. It is affirmed that he did not issue or hand over notice U/s 160 of Cr.P.C to the person namely Sewa Ram to join the investigation. It is affirmed that child Azhar has not stated in his statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C in respect of any 12 bigha field or room situated therein.

STATEMENT OF ACCUSED

5. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein incriminating facts were put to the accused, which was denied by him. He stated that he is innocent and falsely implicated in this case. He is M.Tech and was teaching as Asstt. Professor in Galgotia University, Noida, UP. He had never been indulged in any such crime. He was given beatings by the police after his arrest and was forced to accept the crime. He told the police that he was not present in Delhi on 13-03-2018 and he had never visited the house of child and had never asked the mobile number of Dilshad. Police falsely implicated him in this blind case. He did not opt to lead defence evidence.

FINAL ARGUMENTS

6. It is submitted by Ld. Addl. PP for state that there is no major contradiction and discrepancy in the testimony of witnesses got examined by the prosecution. Testimony of PW2 Dilshad is consistent with his statement Ex.PW2/A which forms the basis of registration of FIR. His testimony is also consistent with facts revealed by him subsequently regarding the ransom call during investigation of the present case. PW-2 has correctly identified the accused. PW-2 Dilshad was a layman and does not possess knowledge of legal definition of Kidnapping. Merely because PW-2 had identified accused as a person who had accompanied the Kidnapper, this will not give rise to an inference that accused was not the Kidnapper in the present case. It is further submitted that except on the point of identity, the testimony of PW-3 Vinod Kumar, who is an independent witness, is also consistent with his statement recorded during FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 38 of 53 investigation of the present case. Similarly, PW6 Laxman has also supported the case of the prosecution and has correctly revealed the name of the accused. Merely, because he has failed to identify the accused due to lapse of time, his entire testimony cannot be discarded. It is well settled that there are certain lapses in the investigation in the present case. At the same time, it is well settled that merely because of lapses in the investigation, the testimony of star witnesses of the prosecution cannot be discarded.

7. Per contra, it is submitted by Sh. Javed Ali, Ld. Defence counsel that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts as there are many material contradictions and discrepancies in the version of the prosecution witnesses. The complainant of the present case i.e. PW-2 Dilshad had only identified the accused as an associate of kidnapper. He never claimed that the accused has played any role in enticing the kidnapped son of complainant. No site plan indicating the place of kidnapping /place where the Kidnapped child was kept, and place from where alleged ransom call was made, and place from where the kidnapped child was recovered, has been prepared by the IO.

PW3 Vinod Kumar, who is an independent witness, from whom a T-shirt for the Kidnapped child was purchased by the accused as per the case of the prosecution, was in dilemma on the aspect of identity of the accused as reflected from his deposition. Moreover, the factum of purchase of T-shirt was not revealed by the Kidnapped child in his statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C nor the said T-shirt was ever recovered during the investigation. Thus, a story of Kidnapping and ransom call has been cooked up by the FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 39 of 53 prosecution. Further, there are material lapses in the investigation of the present case which would point towards the innocence of the accused. As per the prosecution case, the alleged ransom call was made telephonically by the accused from the mobile phone of Laxman to the mobile phone of complainant Dilshad. However, no CDR and CAF of the mobile phone of Laxman or that of the complainant has been collected by the IO. The voice note of the alleged Kidnapper, which was in possession of the complainant, has not been seized by the IO. Further, there are several discrepancies in the testimony of members of the raiding team i.e PW5 Rohit Kumar, PW7 HC Manish, PW-10 HC Anwar, PW11 Retd. SI Harkesh Kumar and PW13 SI Arun as none of them was able to reveal colour and description of clothes worn by Laxman, the person from whose mobile phone the alleged ransom call was made. Nor they were able to reveal the make and model of the mobile phone of Laxman. There are material contradictions in the testimony of above-stated raiding team regarding the location where the Kidnapped child was kept; the mode/means of transport by which the members of the raiding team proceeded for raiding on 15.03.2018; their timings for departing from or arrival at PS; clothes worn by the Kidnapped child at the time of recovery; the manner in which reporting was made at PS Dadri; the description of mobile phone of Laxman and age of PW-6 Laxman. Necessary DD entries regarding receipt of crucial information provided by the complainant i.e. time when complainant came at PS for reporting about the ransom call received by him, and the arrival and departure of police official for proceeding various places in connection with investigation of the present cases have not been FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 40 of 53 placed on record.

It is submitted that all these lapses in the investigation have been made to suppress the truth coming before the court. It is submitted that all the independent witnesses i.e PW-6 Laxman and PW-3 Vinod are planted witnesses in the present case. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

Ld. counsel for the accused has placed reliance upon following authorities in support of his submissions:

1. Jagdish And Ors Vs State Of Mp. Cr.A.Nos 223,239 And 281 Of 2010. Hon'ble High Court Of Madhya Pradesh.

2. State Vs Vijay, Crl. Lp No 323/2010. Hon'ble High Court Of Delhi.

3. Karuna Deka Vs State Of Assam And Ors, Crl.A. 261/2014. Hon'ble High Court Of Gauhati

4. Vinod Vs State Of Mp, C.A No 1065 Of 2001, Hon'ble High Court Of Madhya Pradesh.

5. Narra Peddi Raju Vs State Of Telangana, C.A. No 1553 Of 2019. Supreme Court Of India.

6. Rai Sandeep Vs. State (NCT Of Delhi), C.A. No-2486 Of 2009, Supreme Court Of India.

7. Lal Chand Cheddilal Yadav Vs State Of Mahatrashtra, C.A. No-168/1996, Hon'ble High Court Of Bombay

8. State Vs Sunil Kumar And Ors, Crl Μ.Α. Νο 76/2023, Hon'ble High Court Of Delhi.

FINDINGS OF THE COURT

8. Before analyzing the evidence led by the Prosecution in the present case, this court deems it proper to refer to some FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 41 of 53 provisions of law, which are found to be applicable to the facts of the present case.

361. Kidnapping from lawful guardianship.-- Whoever takes or entices any minor under sixteen years of age if a male, or under eighteen years of age if a female, or any person of unsound mind, out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor or person of unsound mind, without the consent of such guardian, is said to kidnap such minor or person from lawful guardianship. Explanation.--The words "lawful guardian" in this section include any person lawfully entrusted with the care or custody of such minor or other person.

Exception.--This section does not extend to the act of any person who in good faith believes himself to be the father of an illegitimate child, or who in good faith believes himself to be entitled to the lawful custody of such child, unless such act is committed for an immoral or unlawful purpose.

Sections 364A of IPC read as under:-

364A. Kidnapping for ransom, etc.--Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction, and threatens to cause death or hurt to such person, or by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt, or causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or [any foreign State or international inter- governmental organization or any other person] to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom, shall be punishable with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.

9. Perusal of the record would show that this case is based upon the testimony of eyewitness i.e. the kidnapped child PW4 Master 'A', aged about 6 years. He has correctly identified the accused as the person who had taken him along with him and had also purchased a T-shirt for him even though he revealed the name of the accused as 'Ayan'. His testimony was recorded after taking due precautions and determining his competency to depose before the court. In his testimony dated 29-03-2019, PW4 categorically deposed that he was playing in his gali. Ayan FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 42 of 53 had come and took him to his house after giving CHEESE / K-

stick to him. One person took him to a big house on foot where he kept him on a bed. That house had a big gate. He had also brought bike and took him there. His father along with one or two persons reached there and he had brought back him. He had taken food with that person at another house. When he was taken, he was wearing baniyan. The person who had taken him had purchased blue T-shirt for him on the way. That person had not made any promise or said to him anything.

10. Despite a lengthy cross-examination, PW4 stood by his stand of being enticed by the kidnapper to accompany with him to an unknown place (a big house as revealed by PW4). No suggestion was put to PW4 to the effect that he was not kidnapped/ enticed by anyone to go to some place with him. His father i.e. PW2 Dilshad Ahmad had also claimed that he had identified the accused in the company of another kidnapper in the CCTV footage of some person residing in gali no. 10 of his locality. Thus, it is manifest from the testimony of PW4 that it was accused who had enticed the kidnapped minor child (PW4) out of the keeping of his lawful guardian (the parents in the present case) and without the consent of such guardian.

11. In order to prove the ransom call, the prosecution has got examined PW2 Dilshad Ahmad (the complainant). PW2 Dilshad Ahmad has narrated complete details of the mobile phone numbers i.e. 9267996823 and 9873650529 on which he had received the ransom call of Rs. 20 lakhs. He had also claimed that he had forwarded the voice record of the caller to the mobile phone of IO Arun Kumar on Whatsapp and the said voice record were in his possession till the date of his deposition. However, FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 43 of 53 the said voice record had not been made part of the record for reasons best known to the investigating agency. On this aspect, PW2 Dilshad Ahmad has categorically deposed that he had received phone call at about 9/9.15 a.m. on 13.03.2018. Caller had made call at his phone having sim connection no.9250125135. Caller had made call with sim connection no.9267996823 and caller had asked him as to whether he was Dilshad to which he replied that he was Dilshad speaking. Caller had also asked him as to whether his son is missing to which he replied that his son is missing. He asked the name of the caller from him to which the caller did not disclose his name and told him that his son was in his custody. Caller had assured him that his son would be handed over to him after payment of Rs.20 lacs. Caller further warned him not to disclose this fact to anybody including police. Caller again told that he is indulged in kidnapping of children for demanding money and he had given him time till evening for handing over the payment of Rs. 20 lacs at a place NTPC, Dholana, U.P. He further directed him to come alone and also guided him to come on his scooty. Caller had warned him not to disclose this fact to anyone otherwise he would finish his son. He also requested the caller that he want to talk with his son and then he allowed his son to talk with him on phone. When he asked his son about his whereabouts then his son told him that he is with his Chachu. On this, he had told him that he would first discuss the matter at home with his family and then he would inform to him (caller). He asked from the caller about his phone on which he can be available. The caller told him that he is using phone number of some other person and he had arranged the phone from someone to make aforesaid call. The FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 44 of 53 caller told him that he would make a call to him at about 4.00 p.m. on the same day. He discussed the matter with his family. He received phone call of caller at about 4.15 p.m. on 13.03.2018 on his aforesaid phone and the caller had used sim connection no.9873650529 and asked from him about the time of reaching at NTPC. He requested him to grant some more time as he could not arrange the amount of Rs. 20 lakhs, but the caller refused to grant him time and stated that in case he did not provide them the amount then the child would not come back to him nor the caller would make call to him. He started weeping on phone and again requested to grant some time for arranging the amount. Caller thereafter, on his repeated requests, granted time till morning.

12. His testimony is consistent with the case set up by the prosecution. Even though, it appears that there are certain improvements in his version regarding the availability of CCTV footage wherein he had seen the accused in the company of his kidnapped child and one more person and about the availability of voice records in his mobile phone regarding the conversations about the ransom call which took place between his mobile phone and the mobile phone of the kidnapper yet, his testimony cannot be discarded in entirety. All these improvements only indicates lapses in the investigation conducted by the investigating agency. Merely on the basis of said lapses, the entire testimony of PW2 Dilshad Ahmad cannot be discarded particularly in view of the fact that there is nothing on record to indicate that PW2 Dilshad Ahmad was holding any grudge/ having previous enmity against the accused.

13. Another independent witness got examined by the prosecution is i.e. PW6 Master Laxman Sharma, who has FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 45 of 53 corroborated the version of PW2 Dilshad Ahmad and PW4 Master 'A'. Since PW6 Master Laxman Sharma also turned out to be minor, due precautions had been taken to ascertain his competency to depose before the court. Only after having been satisfied about competency of PW6 to depose in the court, his deposition was recorded in the vulnerable witness deposition room on 02/09/2019. Though he has not identified the accused due to lapse of time yet he had correctly revealed the name of the accused as Asif, whose name he came to know later on. He had also furnished the reason for not identifying the accused as the accused was not having beard or mustache at the time of incident. Considering the age of PW6, in the opinion of this court, non-identification of accused by PW6 has not caused any significant dent in the case of the prosecution. His testimony is otherwise consistent with his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW6/A as well as the recovery memo of kidnapped child as Ex. PW6/B. PW6 had narrated in detail as to how the kidnapper had approached him along with the kidnapped child near KRBL (Rice Mill) for the purpose of making phone call to the father of kidnapped child and the manner in which the kidnapped child was recovered from Dadri bus stand by the police officials in his presence. PW6 has correctly identified the kidnapped child on the basis of photograph Mark X, available in the judicial file. Despite lengthy cross-examination, he stood by his stand. Nor any fact has been elicited in his cross-examination to indicate that he was either a planted witness or had been tutored by anyone. Nor there is anything on record to indicate that he was having any prior enmity or ill will with the accused. PW3 Vinod Kumar Gautam has also corroborated the version of kidnapped FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 46 of 53 child Master 'A' on the aspect of purchase of T-shirt from his rehri during the detention of kidnapped child by accused.

14. During the course of arguments, several discrepancies in the testimony of members of the raiding team i.e PW5 Rohit Kumar, PW7 HC Manish, PW-10 HC Anwar, PW11 Retd. SI Harkesh Kumar and PW13 SI Arun have been pointed out. It is submitted that none of these witnesses were able to reveal colour and description of clothes worn by Laxman, the person from whose mobile phone the alleged ransom call was made. Nor they were able to reveal the make and model of the mobile phone of Laxman. Contradictions in the testimony of above-stated raiding team members regarding the location where the Kidnapped child was kept; the mode/means of transport by which the members of the raiding team proceeded for raid on 15.03.2018; their timings for departing from or arrival at PS; clothes worn by the Kidnapped child at the time of recovery; the manner in which reporting was made at PS Dadri; the description of mobile phone of Laxman and age of PW-6 Laxman were pointed out. However, in the opinion of this court, all the above-stated contradictions and discrepancies as pointed out by Ld. Defence counsel does not carry much weight in light of unimpeached testimony of PW2 Dilshad Ahmad, PW4 Master 'A' and PW6 Master Laxman Sharma.

15. Admittedly, last seen togetherness of the kidnapped child with the accused is a material circumstance against the accused and put a burden upon the accused to explain the time or point when he left the company of the kidnapped child. The failure of any explanation of accused to this circumstance leads to an adverse inference against the accused. Further, Section 106 of FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 47 of 53 Evidence Act has put a burden upon the accused to tender a plausible explanation to his last seen togetherness with the kidnapped child to rebut this presumption of the facts within his personal knowledge. To ascertain the extent of burden, it is necessary to see section 106 of Evidence Act as under:

[Section 106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.- When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Illustrations

(a) When a person does an act with some intention other than that which the character and circumstances of the act suggest, the bur- den of proving that intention is upon him.

(b) A is charged with travelling on a railway without ticket. The burden of proving that he had a ticket on him.]

16. This above-said section provides, inter alia, that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person the burden of proving that fact is upon him. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had occasion to deal with this presumption of section 106 of Indian Evidence Act in State of Rajasthan v. Thakur Singh VI (2014) SLT 260 where death of wife was unnatural and witnesses turned hostile. The burden of proof was fixed upon the accused to explain the death of his wife took place within the four corners of the house. Prior to it, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had interpreted this section in Shambhu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer, 1956 SCR 199 that the section is not intended to shift the burden of proof (in respect of a crime) on the accused but to take care of a situation where a fact is known only to the accused and it is well high impossible or extremely difficult for the prosecution to prove that fact. It was observed by the court as under:

"This [section 101] lays down the general rule that in a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution and section 106 is certainly not intended to relieve if of that duty. On the contrary, it is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible, or at any rate FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 48 of 53 disproportionately difficult, for the prosecution to establish facts which are "especially" within the knowledge of the accused and which he could prove without difficulty or inconvenience. The work "especially" stresses that. It means facts that are pre-eminently or exceptionally within his knowledge. It the section were to be interpreted otherwise, it would lead to the very startling conclusion that in a murder case the burden lies on the accused to prove that he did not commit the murder because who could know better than that he whether he did or did not."

17. The observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court made in State of West Bengal v. Mir Mohammad Omar, (2000) 8 SCC 282 is also relevant. The court cited an example to explain the principle behind section 106 of the Evidence Act in following words:

"During arguments we put a question to learned senior counsel for the respondents based on a hypothetical illustration. If a boy is kidnapped from the lawful custody of his guardian in the sight of his people and the kidnappers disappeared with the prey, what would be the normal inference if the mangled dead body of the boy is recovered within a couple of hours from elsewhere. The query was made whether upon proof of the above facts an inference could be drawn that the kidnappers would have killed the boy. Learned Senior Counsel finally conceded that in such a case the inference is reasonably certain that the boy was killed by the kidnappers unless they explain otherwise."

18. In view of the above-said interpretation of presumption of Section 106 of Evidence Act, the burden of proof to prove the facts establishing the guilt of accused does not dispense with by the prosecution, however prosecution may not prove those facts which are exclusively within the knowledge of the accused and the burden to rebut this presumption has been put upon him. If the facts established the case to raise a presumption against the accused, then the failure to discharge this presumption would cost the accused. No defence evidence has been led by the accused despite having given the opportunity.

19. Further, accused Asif Saifi was supposed to put forward some explanation not only during cross-examination of FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 49 of 53 the PW2, PW4 and PW6 (star witnesses of the prosecution), who have proved the last togetherness of accused with the kidnapped child, but also during their statement u/s 313 CrPC. However, he just replied to most of the incriminating facts emerging from the evidence as "it is incorrect", "it is completely false" or "I do not know". Specific questions have been asked from the accused in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. with regard to his identification by PW2 Dilshad Ahmad in the CCTV footage from the camera installed in Gali no. 10 in the locality of house of complainant, the ransom calls revealed by PW2 and the manner in which he was apprehended in the presence of PW6 Laxman Sharma vide question no. 5, 7, 8, 10, 15, 19, 20, to which he did not offer any plausible explanation and simply claimed ignorance about this fact by stating "it is completely false". The accused was supposed to tender a satisfactory explanation to the fact which was within his personal knowledge in terms of section 106 of Evidence Act. No doubt, accused was not supposed to examine any witness to prove this fact, but he was definitely supposed to put forward some defense during prosecution evidence and also to put forward some explanation u/s 313 CrPC to rebut this presumption, which is not done by him.

20. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held in case titled Jagroop Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 11 SCC 768 that if accused failed to tender any plausible explanation to incriminating evidence, it would serve the purpose of fulfilling the missing link of the circumstances. The relevant observation is as under:

"36. Another aspect is to be taken note of. Though the incriminating circumstances which point to the guilt of the accused had been put to the accused, yet he could not give any explanation under Section 313 of the FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 50 of 53 Code of Criminal Procedure except choosing the mode of denial."

21. In State of Maharashtra v. Suresh [(2000) 1 SCC 471 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 263], it has been held that, "when the attention of the accused is drawn to such circumstances that inculpated him in the crime and he fails to offer appropriate explanation or gives a false answer, the same can be counted as providing a missing link for completing the chain of circumstances. We may hasten to add that we have referred to the said decision only to highlight that the accused has not given any explanation whatsoever as regards the circumstances put to him under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure."

22. In view of the facts, it stands proved that accused Asif Saifi had kidnapped Master 'A' and had made the ransom call on the mobile phone of his father i.e. PW2 Dilsahd Ahmad.

23. It is further argued that there are serious lapses in the investigation as the investigating agency had not seized the relevant CCTV footages as reflected from the testimony of PW2 and PW6, voice recording available in the mobile phone of PW2 Dilshad Ahmad regarding the alleged ransom call, non-seizure of mobile phone of PW6 Laxman Sharma, non-collection of CAFs and CDRs of mobile phone of Laxman Sharma and PW2 Dilsahd Ahmad and the mobile phone of kidnapper i.e. 9873650529. Nevertheless, dehors such lapse, the prosecution has well established its case on the basis of unimpeached testimonies of PW2 Dilshad Ahmad, PW3 Vinod Kumar, PW4 Master 'A' and PW6 Laxman Sharma.

24. THE Hon'ble HIGH COURT OF DELHI In Deepak Yadav vs State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) in CRL.A. 231/2017 "It is clear that merely because of some defect in the investigation, lapse on the part of the investigating officer, it cannot be a ground for acquittal. Further, even if there had been negligence on the part of the investigating agency or omissions, etc. it is the obligation on the part of the court to scrutinise the prosecution evidence dehors such lapses to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not and whether such lapses affect the object FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 51 of 53 of finding out the truth. "

25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hema v. State reported as (2013) 10 SCC 192 whilst holding that fair investigation is a part of the constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India and it is the immediate requirement of the rule of law that investigation must be fair, transparent and judicious, observed as follows:

"14. It is also settled law that for certain defects in investigation, the accused cannot be acquitted. This aspect has been considered in various decisions. In C. Muniappan v. State of T.N. [(2010) 9 SCC 567 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1402] , the following discussion and conclusions are relevant which are as follows: (SCC p. 589, para 55) "55. There may be highly defective investigation in a case. However, it is to be examined as to whether there is any lapse by the IO and whether due to such lapse any benefit should be given to the accused. The law on this issue is well settled that the defect in the investigation by itself cannot be a ground for acquittal. If primacy is given to such designed or negligent investigations or to the omissions or lapses by perfunctory investigation, the faith and confidence of the people in the criminal justice administration would be eroded. Where there has been negligence on the part of the investigating agency or omissions, etc. which resulted in defective investigation, there is a legal obligation on the part of the court to examine the prosecution evidence dehors such lapses, carefully, to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not and to what extent it is reliable and as to whether such lapses affected the object of finding out the truth. Therefore, the investigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial. The conclusion of the trial in the case cannot be allowed to depend solely on the probity of investigation."

26. Thus, contention with regard to the lapses in the investigation, as pointed out by Ld. Defence counsel, fails to inspire the confidence of this court. The citations relied upon in defence are not found applicable in the present case in light of peculiar facts.

DECISION OF THE COURT

27. In the opinion of this court, the testimonies of star witnesses of the prosecution comes out to be clear, convincing, trustworthy and inspires confidence of this court. Nothing FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 52 of 53 material came out in their respective cross-examination. There is no reason to disbelieve the version of prosecution witnesses. All the ingredients of section 364A of IPC are satisfied. The prosecution has successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt that on 12-03-2018 at about 2:15 pm, from a place near H. No. B-14/75, Gali no. 11, Subhash Mohalla, Ghonda, Delhi, the accused Asif Saifi had kidnapped master 'A', aged about 5 years, detained him in some place in the area of Dadri, UP and demanded ransom in the sum of Rs. 20 lakhs to release aforesaid kidnapped child. Accordingly, accused Asif Saifi is hereby convicted of the offences punishable u/s 364A of IPC. Let the convict be heard on the quantum of sentence and grant of compensation on the next date of hearing.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT
 On 16-04-2025             PANKAJ                   Digitally signed by PANKAJ
                                                    ARORA
                                      ARORA         Date: 2025.04.16 17:13:47 +0530



                             (PANKAJ ARORA)
                 ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-04: NORTH-EAST/
                          KARKARDOOMA/ 16-04-2025




FIR No. 126/18               State Vs. Asif Saifi                              Page 53 of 53