Delhi District Court
State vs Kadir Khan S/O Late Sh. Jabbar on 13 March, 2012
IN THE COURT OF DR. T.R. NAVAL, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-02, EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI SC NO.91/10 Date of Institution :10.11.2009 FIR No.297/09 Date of Argument :02.03.2012 PS Krishna Nagar Date of Order :13.03.2012 U/S 363/364A IPC State Versus Kadir Khan S/o Late Sh. Jabbar R/o Vill. Manik Chowk Tola Chanderpura PS Runni Saidpur Distt. Sita Mani, Bihar. JUDGMENT
The prosecution case in brief is that on 27.07.2009, Sh. Devanand, s/o Sh. Ram Anand, r/o House No.110, Purani Anarkali, near Balaji Mandir, Delhi-110051, informed the police of PS Krishna Nagar that on 26.7.2009 at about 7:00 p.m. in the evening, his son Rupesh Kumar aged 6 years, height 3 feet of blackish colour (Sawala) wearing T-shirt of green colour and plastic chappal, who had left the house for the purpose of playing, did not return home and he could not be searched out despite making efforts to search him here and there. On the basis of that information, D.D No. 7A at PS Krishan Nagar was recorded. Hue and Cry Notice was got circulated in the area.
SC No. 91/10 State Vs. Kadir Khan Page 1 of 22Message regarding missing of child was flashed. On 27.07.2009, FIR No. 297/2009 at PS Krishna Nagar, in this regard, was recorded. During investigation it was learnt by SHO that one Kadir Khan, may be involved in the crime as he had been continuously making telephone call from his mobile number 09801586159 to mobile number 9868967329 of complainant and he also threatened to complainant to kill his son. It was also reported that Kadir Khan was having enmity with Dev Anand. The above mentioned number were intercepted/monitored after obtaining permission from GNCTD. Investigating Officer gave information to NCRP and advertisement was got published in newspapers. On 28.7.2009, complainant gave one complaint in the PS leveling allegations against accused Kadir Khan, who allegedly gave threat to him either to return Chandan, daughter of sister-in-law of Kadir to him or he would lift son of Devanand. In the meantime, one of the relative of Devanand namely Suresh received one telephone call from phone No. 09801586159. That phone number stood in the name of Hasina Khatoon resident of Darbhanga, Bihar. On 30.7.2009, IO alongwith HC Sripal and H.C Ramveer went to District Motihar, Bihar. On 1.8.2009, Devanand received a call from Kadir Khan, who asked him to reach at railway station Sita Mani alongwith cash of Rs. 1,50,000/-. When he informed Kadir SC No. 91/10 State Vs. Kadir Khan Page 2 of 22 Khan that he had only rupees twenty/thirty thousand then he threatened that he will threw Rupesh after cutting his body into pieces. On 02.08.2009, Devanand again made call to Kadir and Kadir asked him to reach at Rooni Saidpur Jungle alongwith ransom amount and take the child after giving ransom amount. When they arrived at Rooni Saidpur Jungle, the accused escaped after seeing the police party and leaving the child in the jungle. Thus, child was recovered. Recovery memo in respect of child was prepared. On 4.8.2009, when the raiding party was coming back to Delhi, and they arrived at Gorakhpur railway station, at about 3:30 p.m., complainant Devanand informed the raiding party that accused Kadir Khan was standing near bench at T stall of railway station. At the pointing out of complainant he was apprehended. He was interrogated and he made disclosure statement which was recorded. He was also arrested and his arrest memo and personal search memo were prepared. After returning, victim Rupesh was medically examined in SDN hospital. Tickets of journey were seized vide seizure memo. The child was handed over to the complainant. After recording of statements and completion of investigations, police filed charge sheet against accused for his trial for the offences punishable U/s. 363/364A IPC.
SC No. 91/10 State Vs. Kadir Khan Page 3 of 222. After supplying of copies of charge sheet and documents to the accused, Ld. M.M. committed this case to the courts of sessions and it was assigned to this court.
3. My Ld. Predecessor vide his order dated 13.11.2009 opined that a prima facie case u/s 363/364A IPC was made out against the accused. Accordingly, charge against accused Kadir Khan for the said offences was framed and read over to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In support of its case, prosecution examined Sh. Devanand, complainant as PW1; Master Rupesh as PW2; HC Sripal Singh as PW3; HC Rambir as PW4; ASI Mohd. Ali as PW5; Sh. Avdhesh Kumar Jha, Advocate as PW6; SI J.K. Singh as PW7; and Suresh @ Suraj as PW8.
5. After closing of prosecution evidence statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Accused pleaded that he was working as driver with Shanti Lal Kapoor, Property Dealer. He was going to his room at Kondli after finishing his duties with him. Two Constables in plain clothes were beating a person named Sonu r/o 40 foota road Jagatpuri opposite Ahuja Tent House. Police Constable Ombeer asked him to help them by holding Sonu. Accused SC No. 91/10 State Vs. Kadir Khan Page 4 of 22 refused to do so. He slapped him and in retaliation he also slapped him. He brought out his pistol and pointed at him. He was also having licensed pistol. He brought out and pointed at him. Both the constables left Sonu and started beating him and took him to the PS. He was beaten severally at the PS. His licensed pistol was put up before SHO who checked and seized it alongwith his money Rs. 24,000/-, D/L and documents, besides, his motorcycle bearing No.DL1518 make Pulsar. He was falsely implicated in the present case. Accused denied all the material evidence and pleaded that he was innocent.
6. In support of his defence, accused examined Ms. Sabeela Khatoon, wife of accused as DW1; Sh. Radhey Shyam, neighbourer of accused as DW2; Ms. Shivani daughter of accused Kadir Khan as DW3; and Smt. Dolly, neighbourer of accused as DW4.
7. After closing of evidence of both the parties, I have heard arguments addressed by Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, and Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused and perused file.
8. It has been argued on behalf of Ld. defence counsel that accused has been falsely implicated in the SC No. 91/10 State Vs. Kadir Khan Page 5 of 22 present case due to enmity. Infact a relative of Kadir Khan namely Nazneen was kidnapped and she has not yet been recovered. The investigation was not conducted by duly authorized police officials and it was conducted by an officials below the rank of Sub Inspector. The police has not joined any public witnesses either at the time of recovery of accused, at the railway station or at other relevant place of recovery. Infact accused Kadir was apprehended from Delhi and he was falsely implicated in the present case. There are material contradictions in the statement of prosecution witnesses. The testimony of PW2 is not believable as per provisions of Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act. He was not a competent witness as at the time of alleged incident he was hardly aged six years. The police official did not make any arrival or departure entry in the police station out of Delhi. Their testimonies are not reliable. PW6 Sh. Avdesh Kumar Jha, Advocate, deposed falsely against the accused to save himself. Ld. Defence Counsel submitted that accused is entitled for acquittal on getting the benefit of doubt.
9. On the other hand Ld. Additional P.P. for the State argued that prosecution has successfully proved its case against the accused.
SC No. 91/10 State Vs. Kadir Khan Page 6 of 22Findings
10. It would be appropriate to reproduce Sections 361 & 364A of IPC. These run as under:
"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.
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."
11. On scrutinizing and analyzing the prosecution evidence on record, I come to the conclusion that evidence on record could not established beyond reasonable suspicion and doubt that accused Kadir Khan committed the offence of kidnapping from lawful guardianship or kidnapping for ransom. The reasons which support my decision are firstly that testimony of PW1, father of child Rupesh who was allegedly kidnapped by the accused is neither consistent nor trustworthy. His testimony is not at all reliable. Sometimes, he partly supported the SC No. 91/10 State Vs. Kadir Khan Page 7 of 22 prosecution case and sometimes he deposed in quite contradiction of prosecution story. He was declared hostile. In cross examination he denied the suggestion that on 28.07.2009 he told IO that Kadir extended threat to him that if he inform to police then he would kill his son or that on 31.07.2009 he told to IO that when he received call on his mobile from the mobile number 09801586159, the caller disclosed his name as Kadir or he uttered that "Kadir Bol Raha Hoon Aur Tera Ladka Mere Pass Hai, Tughe Ladka Chahiye to Mujhe Dedh Lakh Rupayee Nakad De Do. Main Tera Ladka Wapas Kar Doonga Sahi Salamat." He admitted in cross examination conducted by Ld. Defence Counsels that police told him what had to be deposed in the court and that he deposed under pressure of the police. He further admitted that he did not depose correct and true facts on earlier date in the court. He continued to admit that Suresh did not tell him that Kadir informed him that his son Rupesh was with him or that Suresh informed him that his son would be given back in return of a girl taken by Chandan or that he knew that he could be prosecuted for deposing falsely in the court. He continued to depose that Kadir did not extend any threat on telephone to him and he did not call Kadir on phone or that Suresh did not give telephone number of Kadir to him or that he did not inform anybody that he required sometime to arrange the money SC No. 91/10 State Vs. Kadir Khan Page 8 of 22 and no one asked him to send his father to Bhawanipur Jungle with the money. He did not go to jungle and there was no question of seeing any person with his child. His son was found at PS in Bihar. He did not see accused Kadir Khan at Railway Station Gorakhpur and he identified accused Kadir in the court at the instance of police and his signatures were obtained on 5-7 blank papers at PS Krishna Nagar, Delhi. Accused Kadir did not make any disclosure statement in his presence and that he did not have any complaint against accused Kadir present in the court. He could not say whether his child was kidnapped or not. These portions of his testimony show that he could not support the prosecution case on any aspect. This conclusion finds support by a case Surajmal v. State (Delhi Administration), 1979 Crl. J. 1087 wherein, the Apex Court observed that:
"Where witnesses make to inconsistent statements in their evidence either at one stage or at two stages, the testimony of such witnesses becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the absence of special circumstances no conviction can be based on the evidence of such witnesses."
12. Secondly, testimony of child Master Rupesh PW2 also does not inspire confidence. His testimony comes in the category of tutored witness. He deposed that he knew accused Kadir who never visited his house till the incident.
SC No. 91/10 State Vs. Kadir Khan Page 9 of 22Accused Kadir took him to the jungle. Police came there. Kadir left him in the jungle. Thereafter, police rescued him. Accused Kadir was chased but he could not apprehended. Later on accused Kadir was apprehended by the police on road. After that police brought him to Delhi by car. At the time of apprehending of accused Kadir on road he identified him. This testimony of PW2 is also in contradiction of the prosecution story and testimony of the other material prosecution witnesses. Case of the prosecution is that accused Kadir was apprehended from railway station and not from the road. Child Master Rupesh, PW2 alongwith his father was brought in a train and not by car. Moreover, in the examination in chief he deposed that he knew accused Kadir who never visited the house before the incident but in cross examination he stated that Kadir used to visit his house occasionally. Besides, PW2 avoided to answer almost material questions i.e. he could not tell the name of his school or name of his class teacher or the name of school which was written on the board outside the gate of the school or date and time of the incident on which the incident occurred and or the season in which the incident had taken place. He could not tell the reason as to why he did not tell his elder sister who was playing with him that he was going with Kadir. He could not tell as to how many hours did he stay with accused Kadir or whether SC No. 91/10 State Vs. Kadir Khan Page 10 of 22 police made any inquiry from him. My decision on the point is fortified by a case Nirmal Kumar v. State, AIR 1992 SC 1131, wherein it has been observed that testimony of child witness should be accepted very cautiously and courts should find some corroboration. In the present case not only the child PW2 deposed inconsistently but also his father also deposed inconsistently. His testimony has not been supported by any evidence on record.
13. Thirdly, testimony of PW8 Suresh @ Suraj is also not believable for the reasons that even his identity has not been established beyond doubt. He told his name as Suresh but signed as Suraj. Besides, he could not tell the correct facts of the case. In cross examination conducted by Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor he admitted that he did not remember that he had received a call on 28.04.2009 from mobile No.09801586159 from accused Kadir. He stated that he did not remember the number of mobile from which he received a telephone call from accused Kadir. Even during cross examination conducted by Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor he failed to support the prosecution case. Thus, in the present case this material witness also failed to corroborate the prosecution case.
14. Fourthly, the prosecution has failed to file and SC No. 91/10 State Vs. Kadir Khan Page 11 of 22 prove the telephonic call details not only about the conversation which allegedly took place in between the accused Kadir & Suresh but also in between accused Kadir and PW1 Sh. Devanand. Thus, the prosecution has failed to corroborate its case by scientific evidence.
15. Fifthly, I have noticed material contradictions in the testimonies of material witnesses which have created suspicion about the genuineness of the prosecution case. This conclusion finds strength by a case Appabhai And Anr. v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 696 wherein the Apex Court observed that when a doubt arises in respect of a certain fact alleged by such witness, the proper course is to ignore that fact only unless it goes into the root of the matter so as to demolish the entire prosecution story and another case of Babu Lal and Others v. State, 1994 JCC 111 wherein, the Delhi High Court observed that:
"There are serious lapses in the prosecution story in connecting these appellants with the offence. The story put up by the prosecution as far as these appellants are concerned, is unbelievable and doubtful."
16. In the present case all the material witnesses deposed in quite contradiction of each other on each material aspect e.g. on the point of giving information of kidnapping by PW8 to PW1 and having conversation of SC No. 91/10 State Vs. Kadir Khan Page 12 of 22 PW1 with the accused and on the aspect of place of recovery of child, place of arrest of accused, mode of transport used by the witnesses while returning to Delhi after rescuing of child PW2 and making entries at police stations situated out of Delhi. These contradiction goes to the root of the case and those glaring contradictions which have been found on record have shaken the very root of the prosecution case and demolished it completely.
17. Sixthly, although PW6 in his examination in chief deposed that accused Kadir was involved in many criminal cases and that on 01.08.2009 accused Kadir disclosed to him that he had kidnapped the son of complainant form Delhi as nephew of the complainant had enticed daughter of his brother in law (Sadu) and he had scolded him and asked him not to involve in any illegal activity, yet this portion of his testimony is not believable because as per provisions of clause (1) of proviso to Section 126 Indian Evidence Act, he could disclosed this information to the police but in cross examination he stated that he neither informed the police about the kidnapping nor disclosed this fact to the complainant particularly when complainant, accused and PW6 belonged to the same native village. This creates suspicion and doubt about the truthfulness of testimony of PW6.
SC No. 91/10 State Vs. Kadir Khan Page 13 of 2218. Seventhly, testimonies of PW3 , PW4, PW5, and PW7 who are the police witnesses will not provide any benefit to the prosecution case without support by material/eye witnesses, in establishing its case against accused beyond reasonable suspicion or doubt.
19. Eighthly, the principles of law laid down in a case Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622, provides benefit to accused wherein, it was inter alia held by Apex court that:
"It is well settled that where on the evidence two possibilities are available or open, one which goes in favour of the prosecution and the other which benefits an accused, the accused is undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of doubt."
20. Ninethly, the principles of law laid down in a case State of Madhya Pradesh v. Har Narayan, 1983 Crimes 916, provides benefit to accused wherein, the important point which was emerged was that inconsistent evidence even though there is ring of truth therein, justifies the acquittal of the accused.
21. Tenthly, the principles of law laid down in a case Satbir Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1982 SCC (Cri.) 132, provides benefit to accused wherein, it was held that when SC No. 91/10 State Vs. Kadir Khan Page 14 of 22 the prosecution has failed to bring the charge home to the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, he is entitled for acquittal.
22. Eleventhly, the principles of law laid down in a case Mohd. Jasimuddin Ahmed v. State of Assam, 1982 Cri.L.J. 1510 provides benefit to accused wherein, it was held by Gauhati High Court that:
"It is the settled rule of circumstantial evidence that where circumstances are susceptible of two equally possible inferences, the court should accept that inference which favours the accused rather than an inference which goes in favour of the prosecution. The rule of appreciation of circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances must be of a conclusive nature and tendency so as to be totally inconsistent with his innocence and are not explainable on any other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused."
23. Twelthly, the defence witnesses have supported the motive of PW1 to implicate him in a false case. Thus, it may be possible that due to enmity between the accused and the complainant, the complainant might have implicated the accused in a false case.
24. Lastly, relying on the principle that let hundred criminals may go unpunished but one innocent should not be punished, and further that accused must be presumed innocent till prosecution proves its case against accused SC No. 91/10 State Vs. Kadir Khan Page 15 of 22 beyond reasonable suspicion and doubt, it would be just fair and appropriate if the accused is given benefit of doubt as the prosecution has failed to connect all the chains of events/circumstance against accused which could connect him to the alleged crime.
25. In view of the above reasons and discussion, it is held that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond suspicion and reasonable doubt that either he committed offence of kidnapping from lawful guardianship or kidnapping for ransom punishable u/s 363/364A IPC, respectively.
Giving False Evidence By PW1
26. My attention goes to a case Surinder Singh v. State of Haryana, (P&H)(DB), 2009(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 421, the P & H High court observed:
"24. We are pained to record that a number of prosecution witnesses turned hostile. These prosecution witnesses have made statements before the Investigating Officer that they are the eye witnesses of the occurrence and of extra judicial confession. It was in their presence that incriminating material against the appellant was collected in the course of investigation.***
29. It is very common now-a-days those witnesses, while supporting the prosecution version at the investigation stage of the case by giving a version there, take a complete U-turn at the trial by not supporting the SC No. 91/10 State Vs. Kadir Khan Page 16 of 22 prosecution, thereby making the case to fall for want of evidence. This practice has become a menace in the criminal judicial system.
30. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had dealt very heavily in a case of a similar nature in "Best Bakery Case", where the star witness Zahira at different stages changed her stand and departed from her earlier statements. In that case, vide order dated 12.4.2004, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Zahira Habibulla Sheikh (1) v. State of Gujrat (2004)4 SCC 158 ordered retrial of the case and also gave options to the investigating agency or those supervising the investigation, to act in terms of Section 173 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the circumstances seem to or may so warranted.***
31. Taking up the aforesaid inquiry report, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (5) v.
State of Gujrat (2006) 3 SCC 374 observed as follows :
"Serious questions arise as to the role played by witnesses who changed their versions more frequently than chameleons. Zahira's role in the whole case is an eye- opener for all concerned with the administration of criminal justice. As highlighted at the threshold the criminal justice system is likely to be affected if persons like Zahira are to be left unpunished."*** As has been noticed in the earlier case (reported in 2004 (4) SCC 158), the role to be played by Courts, witnesses, investigating officers, public prosecutors has to be focused, more particularly when eyebrows are raised about their roles.
33. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by holding her guilty of perjury concluded by sentencing Zahira to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in case of default of payment within two months, she was ordered to suffer further imprisonment of one year.
34. In an another case Mahila Vinod Kumari v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 8 SCC 34 where the petitioner had lodged FIR against two persons on the allegations of SC No. 91/10 State Vs. Kadir Khan Page 17 of 22 having committing rape and it was only on the basis of the same that charge-sheet was filed against them and they were put to trial. During trial, the prosecutrix resiled from her statement made during the investigation and even denied lodging of the FIR or having had given any statement to the police. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under :
"The purpose of enacting Section 344 Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 479-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Old Code') appears to be further arm the Court with a weapon to deal with more flagrant cases and not to take away the weapon already in its possession. The object of the legislature underlying enactment of the provision is that the evil of perjury and fabrication of evidence has to be eradicated and can be better achieved now as it is open to the Courts to take recourse to Section 340(1) (corresponding to Section 476 of the Old Code) in cases in which they are failed to take action under Section 344 Cr.P.C."
"This Section introduces an additional alternative procedure to punish perjury by the very Court before which it is committed in place of old Section 479 A which did not have the desired effect to eradicate the evils of perjury."
"For exercising the powers under S. 344 of the Code, the Court at the time of delivery of judgment or final order must at the first instance express an opinion to the effect that the witness before it has either intentionally given false evidence or fabricated such evidence. The second condition is that the Court must come to the conclusion that in the interests of justice the witness concerned should be punished summarily by it for the offence which appears to have been committed by the witness. And the third condition is that before commencing the summary trial for punishment the witness must be given reasonable opportunity of showing cause why he should not be so punished. All these conditions are mandatory. The object of the provision is to deal with the evil of perjury in a summary way. "
35. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that this provision SC No. 91/10 State Vs. Kadir Khan Page 18 of 22 should be used effectively and frequently to stop the menace of perjury, which has bearing on alarming rise. The apex Court held as under :
"The evil of perjury has assumed alarming propositions in cases depending on oral evidence and in order to deal with the menace effectively it is desirable for the courts to use the provision more effectively and frequently than it is presently done."
36. We are pained to see that the trial Courts willingly or unwillingly are not taking action against hostile witnesses. A number of witnesses who should be deposing as per their statements given under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and should be supporting the prosecution turn hostile. The trial Courts cannot be mute spectators to the statement of these witnesses, when the witnesses are intentionally giving false evidence (a statement to help the accused). Action should be taken under the relevant provisions of law against such witnesses, so that the administration of criminal justice does not suffer.
37. In a case before this Court (Punjab and Haryana High Court) Krishan and others v. State of Haryana, 2005(2) RCR (Criminal) 109 in case under Section 302 IPC, for the murder of Balraj, the law was set into motion on the registration of the FIR by PW8 Bijender. At the trial, Bijender (PW8) supported the case of the prosecution in the cross-examination. His cross- examination was got deferred by the defence counsel on the ground of his illness. When cross-examined on the subsequent date, he resiled from his statement Exhibit PB on the basis of which FIR was registered as well as from the statement recorded in the Court on the previous date. He stated that police had obtained his signatures on blank paper and, therefore, he had denied the contents of his statement, Exhibit PB. He stated that he made the statement in the Court as PW8 on the previous date under the pressure of police.
38. Before we conclude, we wish to reflect in the manner the prosecution witnesses have behaved in order to SC No. 91/10 State Vs. Kadir Khan Page 19 of 22 circumvent the proceedings with an ulterior motive to help the accused. Five prosecution witnesses, namely Yad Ram, PW1, Jag Ram, PW2, Hari Chand, PW6, and Roshan Lal, PW7, declined to support the case of the prosecution. All of them were declared hostile.***
41. From the facts, it is evident that investigation was conducted properly. No one has caused any aspersion or pleaded that the case was not properly investigated. The totality of the circumstances indicate and establish that Yad Ram, PW1, Jag Ram, PW2 and Roshan Lal, PW7 resiled from their earlier stand with a view to help the accused- appellant ultimately subverting the process of justice delivery system.
44. Consequently, we issue notice to PWs No. 1 to 3 and 6 and 7 who have tried to save the accused-appellant from legal punishment by resiling from their statements and denying their participation during the course of investigation.
45. Hence, a show cause notice is issued to PWs I to 3 and 6 and 7 to explain as to why a complaint be not lodged against them for committing the offence of perjury. All the PWs, named above, are directed to appear before this Court on 5.10.2009."
27. Turning to the case in hand I find that PW1, on oath deposed falsely in the court for using it against accused Kadir. Even PW1 in his cross examination admitted on oath that he deposed falsely in the court. Therefore, in view of the principles of law laid down in case Surinder Singh v. State of Haryana, (supra), I am of the view that present case is the proper case for taking legal action against PW1 Devanand for making false statement on oath SC No. 91/10 State Vs. Kadir Khan Page 20 of 22 in the court. My decision in this regard is based on the ground that PW1 Devanand has deposed falsely as discussed above. Secondly, it is in the interest of justice that PW1 should be punished for making false statement in the court on oath. Let show cause notice be issued to him showing cause as to why legal action as per law should not be initiated against him to punish him for making false statement on oath in the court.
ORDER
28. Consequent upon the above reasons, discussion and conclusions, it is held that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused Kadir Khan beyond suspicion and reasonable doubt and the prosecution neither could prove that he committed offence of kidnapping from lawful guardianship punishable under section 363 IPC nor kidnapping for ransom punishable u/s 364A IPC nor any minor offence connected with these offences. Therefore, accused Kadir Khan is entitled to get benefit of doubt and consequently by giving him benefit of doubt, accused Kadir Khan is acquitted for said offences.
29. Accused Kadir Khan is in Judicial Custody. He be released forthwith from jail if he is not required in any SC No. 91/10 State Vs. Kadir Khan Page 21 of 22 other case.
30. However, accused is directed to furnish his personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of like amount as per provisions of Section 437 A of Cr.P.C. for a period of six months for ensuring his presence before the Appellate Court within a week.
Announced in the open court on 13.03.2012 (DR. T.R. NAVAL) Additional Sessions Judge-02 East District:KKD Courts:Delhi SC No. 91/10 State Vs. Kadir Khan Page 22 of 22