Delhi District Court
State vs . Avadesh Kumar Mishra & Ors. - Sc No. 17 Of ... on 19 December, 2014
ID No. 02403R0222472010
IN THE COURT OF SH. VINAY KUMAR KHANNA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04
SOUTH EAST: SAKET COURTS: DELHI
Sessions Case No. 17 of 2012
Unique ID No. 02403R0222472010
FIR No. 244/2009
U/s. 364-A r/w 34 IPC
PS : Sarita Vihar
State
Versus
Avadesh Kumar Dubey, ..........Accused No.1
S/o Sh. Ram Pratab Dubey,
R/o Village Deval, PS Dhammor,
District Sultanpur, UP.
Kmalesh Kumar, ..........Accused No.2
S/o Sh. Ram Bohar Mishra,
R/o Village Bithalpur, PS Bikapur,
District Faizabad (UP).
Anil Mishra, ..........Accused No.3
S/o Sh. Lalu Prasad Mishra,
R/o Village Vithalpur, PS Dikapur,
District Faizabad (UP)
Instituted on : 15th February 2012
Argued on : 19th December 2014
Decided on : 19th December 2014
JUDGMENT
1. Accused persons in this case were prosecuted for commission of offence punishable u/s 364-A r/w 34 IPC. In brief, case of the prosecution is that on 24 th August 2009, DD No. 25A was recorded at Police Station Sarita Vihar to the effect that a demand of ransom of Rs.40,000/- was made when the complainant Rahul Kumar (brother-in-law of the victim Sona Lal) was present at D-49, Old Jasola Village. Complainant informed the police that Sona Lal, his brother-in-law has been abducted and was being threatened to kill and said information was received from mobile phone Nos. 9015171009 and 9718928179. ASI Jagdish alongwith Constable Satish Kumar reached at B-49, Old Jasola Village, where he met State Vs. Avadesh Kumar Mishra & Ors. - SC No. 17 of 2012 1 ID No. 02403R0222472010 complainant Rahul Kumar and recorded his statement. In his statement, Rahul Kumar, complainant stated that he was residing at B-49 Old, Jasola Village and was plying vehicle of a call centre named Wipro. His brother-in-law Sona Lal S/o Jai Lal Mehto had come from Bihar on 04th August 2009 in order to find a job. Since, he could not find the job, he got his tickets reserved in order to to him back to Bihar on 25th August 2009. At 10.00 am on 24th August 2009, Sona Lal, the victim had gone to Noida in order to see a movie at Great India Place Cinema near Atta Market. At 12:30 pm, afternoon, he received a telephonic call from mobile number 9718928179 on his mobile phone no. 9015171009, whereby a stranger told him that his brother-in-law had been abducted and he called Rahul Kumar to come at Atta Market, near Great India Palace alongwith ransom amount of Rs.40,000/- failing which his brother-in-law was threatened to be killed. Thereafter, he received other calls from different number including from mobile number 9015798910 making demand of ransom of Rs.40,000/-. Complainant suspected that his brother-in-law Sh. Sona Lal had been abducted in order to obtained ransom. ASI Jagdish made endorsement on the statement of Rahul Kumar. He got FIR u/s 364-A IPC registered vide DD No. 29A at 05.30 pm. ASI Jagdish informed incident to the senior police officer, whereupon ASI Jagdish alongwith SI D.K. Tejwan, Ct. Satish Kumar and Ct. Ram Kumar reached at the spot and a raiding party was prepared by Insp. Dinesh Chand. Efforts were made to search the victim. Police reached near Great India Place, where complainant Rahul informed police that abductor had called them inside the house of Bhima behind Father Central School, Khoda Colony. Police party reached at the house of Bhima at first floor, Khoda Colony and asked complainant/Rahul Kumar to get the door State Vs. Avadesh Kumar Mishra & Ors. - SC No. 17 of 2012 2 ID No. 02403R0222472010 open. On identification of Rahul, Sona Lal was recovered and name of offenders were revealed as Avdesh Kumar, Kamlesh and Anil Mishra and they were apprehended. Their disclosure statements were recorded. From the disclosure statement of accused persons as well as from the statement of Sona Lal, it was revealed that on 12th August 2009, three boys had handed over two bundles of counterfeit notes and then took away Rs.26,000/-, from accused Anil, who had noted down mobile no. 718928179. Said boy was called at Great Indian place Cinema, where Anil Mishra and other co accused Avdesh and Kamlesh abducted Sona Lal and took him to his room. They made telephonic call to the complainant for demanding Rs.40,000/- on 30th September. Statement of victim u/s 164 Cr.PC was recorded, wherein he stated at 11:30 am, he reached at Great India place and was standing at the gate, then somebody blindfolded him from backside and tied his hand. There were three persons, who took him somewhere in an auto. He was beaten up mercilessly and became unconscious. From his mobile phone, call was made to his brother-in-law Rahul for demanding ransom of Rs. 40,000/- failing which he was threatened to kill. Admittedly, a cross case FIR No. 540/09 was registered at Police Station Sector-24, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida by Lallu Prasad Mishra, father of Anil Mishra against victim Sona Lal and complainant Rahul Kumar on 03rd November 2009, pursuant to complaint dated 12 th August 2009 lodged by accused Anil Mishra.
2. On completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed in the Court and case was committed to the Court of Sessions on 15th February 2012. Charges were framed by this Court on 30th October 2013 u/s 364-A r/w 34 IPC against accused persons to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
State Vs. Avadesh Kumar Mishra & Ors. - SC No. 17 of 2012 3
ID No. 02403R0222472010
3. Points which emerge for determination in this case is whether on 24th August 2009 at Great India Place, Noida at unknown time accused persons in furtherance of their common intention detained Sona Lal and, if so whether they demanded ransom money of Rs.40,000/- or threatened to kill Sona Lal, if the demand of ransom was not fulfilled?
4. Prosecution in order to prove its case, examined four witnesses. Retired Sub-Inspector Satpal Singh (PW1) Duty Officer recorded FIR (Ex.PW1/A) and made endorsement on the rukka (Ex.PW1/B); Sub-Inspector Jagdish Parsad (PW-4), Investigating Officer investigated the case and prepared several documents. He recorded statement of complainant Rahul (Ex.PW2/A), prepared recovery memo of victim Sona Lal (Ex.PW2/N), arrested accused Avdesh Kumar (vide Ex.PW2/C), Kamlesh Kumar (vide Ex.PW2/D) and Anil Mishra (vide Ex.PW2/D). He prepared personal search memos pertaining to Awdesh Kumar (Ex.PW2/F), Kamlesh Kumar (Ex.PW2/G) and Anil Mishra (Ex.PW2/H). PW-4 prepared recovery memo of two mobile phones (Ex.PW2/M & Ex.PW2/P respectively). He prepared pointing out memo (Ex.PW2/Q) and recorded disclosure statement of accused Avadesh (Ex.PW2/J), Kamlesh (Ex.PW2/K) and Anil Mishra (Ex.PW2/L). PW-4 deposed that he recorded statement of the victim u/s 161 Cr.PC at the Police Station and thereafter, custody of Sona Lal was handed over to the complainant Rahul vide memo Ex.PW2/R; Sh. Rahul Kumar (PW-2) is complainant and Sh. Sona Lal (PW-3) is victim. Their statements are discussed below.
5. I have heard submissions advanced by Sh.Wasi-Ur-Rehman, Learned Addl. PP for the State and Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Learned Counsel appearing for the accused persons and have perused material on record.
6. I shall now advert to the testimony of material witnesses. Sh. Rahul Kumar, Complainant (PW-2) in his deposition, stated that he did not remember the State Vs. Avadesh Kumar Mishra & Ors. - SC No. 17 of 2012 4 ID No. 02403R0222472010 exact date, month and year of the incident, however 5 years ago, his brother-in-law Sona Lal had come to Delhi from Bihar in order to find a job. PW-2 deposed that in December 2009, he had gone to his place of work at Sarita Vihar, whereas Sona Lal had gone for an outing. In the afternoon, he received a telephonic all from a unknown person at his mobile phone number. He could not tell mobile phone number from which he had received the call. He did not remember his mobile phone number as his mobile phone was misplaced. PW-2 deposed that the stranger, who made telephonic call to him was abusing him and told him that he had apprehended his brother-in-law Sona Lal and that they should bring Rs.40,000/- for his release at Atta Market, Noida. Thereafter, he again received another telephonic call made by a different phone number for demanding Rs.40,000/-. He informed police at 100 number. He was called to the Police Station, where his statement was recorded. Complainant further deposed that during night time, he was again called by the Police at the Police Station and was informed by the Police that they have got released Sona Lal. He went to the Police Station and saw Sona Lal at the Police Station. Complainant (PW-2) deposed that police obtained his signatures on 6-7 papers in the Police Station. He could not identify three persons apprehended by the police and stated that he did not know anything else in this case. PW-2 deposed that he could not identify mobile phone recovered by the police, if shown to him. PW-2 was questioned in the nature of cross examination u/s 154 Indian Evidence Act by Ld. Addl. PP for the State. Complainant denied all the suggestion and the case of prosecution put to him. There is nothing in his cross examination, which could be of any help to the prosecution. In cross examination conducted by Defence Counsel, PW-2 admitted that seizure memo (Ex.PW2/B) was not prepared in his presence and the contents of the said document was not written thereon. He deposed that his signatures were obtained on blank papers by the police. He admitted that documents (Ex.PW2/G & Ex.PW2/H) were not State Vs. Avadesh Kumar Mishra & Ors. - SC No. 17 of 2012 5 ID No. 02403R0222472010 prepared in his presence and the contents of the said documents were not written thereon at the time of signing these documents and his signature were obtained on blank forms by the Police thereon.
8. Sona Lal (PW-3) deposed that on 24th August 2009, at about 09:00 am, he had gone to Great India Palace near Atta Market, Noida to see a movie. As soon as, he reached near Atta Market somebody blindfolded him from his backside and made him sit in a vehicle. He could not tell where he was taken or how many persons were there. PW-3 deposed that black bandage was opened from his eyes only when the police came. He did not know the name of the person, who abducted him and stated that he could not identify those persons. PW-3 deposed that till date, he is not aware who were the persons who had abducted him or confined him. Witness was questioned u/s 154 Indian Evidence Act by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, in the nature of cross examination. In his cross examination, PW-3 deposed that he did not know, if accused Anil Mishra abducted him. He did not know, if a sum of Rs.40,000/- was demanded from his brother-in-law as a ransom. He did not know, if his brother-in-law (jija) accompanied police officials at the time recovery of himself. He admitted that he had signed some papers, but did not know the contents of the papers. In cross examination conducted by Defence Counsel, PW-3 deposed that he did not know about the contents of documents (Ex.PW2/N, Ex.PW2/P & Ex.PW2/Q). He admitted that the contents thereof were not written at the time of signing by him on the said documents.
9. Sub-Inspector Jagdish Parsad (PW-4), Investigating Officer admitted that he did not to to the house of complainant Rahul and was present in the gali near his house. PW-4 admitted that no demand of money or call of ransom was made by any of accused, in his presence. He admitted that he had not heard any of the accused demanding ransom from the complainant or the victim. PW-4 admitted that accused State Vs. Avadesh Kumar Mishra & Ors. - SC No. 17 of 2012 6 ID No. 02403R0222472010 Anil Mishra informed him that somebody duped him of Rs.26,000/- when he was present at State Bank of India, Sector-24, Noida on 12th August 2009 and that he filed complaint in that regard in Police Station Noida on 12th August 2009. PW-4 admitted that they had not asked any public persons to join investigation with them from the house of Bheema before reaching Bheema ka Makaan. He could not tell the make of any of the mobile phones and had not obtained ownership paper of any of the mobile phones. He had not verified ownership of the mobile phone, allegedly recovered from accused Anil Mishra. IO further deposed that number of families used to reside in the same premises from where victim was recovered and alleged mobile phone was recovered from Anil Mishra. He had not joined any neighbour residing in the same premises, during investigation at the spot and not given any notice to the neighbours.
10. Perusal of material on record shows that material witnesses i.e. complainant Rahul (PW-2) and victim Sona Lal (PW-3) have not supported the case of the prosecution as regards identity of accused persons. PW-2 could not identify accused person. Victim Sona Lal (PW-3) also could not identify the accused persons. He deposed that when he reached near Aata Market somebody had blindfolded him from his backside. He did not know, where he was taken or how many persons were there. These witnesses were questioned by Ld. Addl. PP for the State in the nature of cross examination and they denied all the suggestions put to them by Learned Addl. PP. There is nothing in their cross examination which could be of any help to the prosecution.
11. In view of deposition of material witnesses noted above, it was considered an exercise in futility to examine remaining witnesses. In view of evidence noted above, statements of accused persons u/s 313 Cr.PC was dispensed with. There being no incriminating evidence against the accused persons to link them with State Vs. Avadesh Kumar Mishra & Ors. - SC No. 17 of 2012 7 ID No. 02403R0222472010 the offence in question, this Court finds that prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. In the result, accused persons are hereby acquitted from the charges against them. File be consigned to Record Room.
announced in the
open court on
19th December 2014 (Vinay Kumar Khanna)
ASJ-04 & Spl. Judge (NDPS) South East,
Saket Court/New Delhi
State Vs. Avadesh Kumar Mishra & Ors. - SC No. 17 of 2012 8