Delhi District Court
State vs . Manjeet Chauhan & Anr. on 27 January, 2021
IN THE COURT OF MS. CHARU AGGARWAL : ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE 02 :
CENTRAL DISTRICT : TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
State Vs. Manjeet Chauhan & Anr.
FIR No. 276/14
SC No. 27180/2016
PS New Delhi Railway Station
U/s 363/364 A/34 IPC
1. SC No. of this case : 27180/2016
2. Date of commission of offence : 06.06.2014
3. Name and address of accused : 1. Manjeet Chauhan S/o Late Sh. Ram
Prashad R/o Village Kasela, PP Dhumri,
PS Jaithra, District Etah, U.P.
2. Raju Prajapati S/o Sh. Karan Singh
R/o Mohalla - Hakiman, PS Shahbad,
Rampur, U.P.
4. Offence complained of : 363/364 A/34 IPC
5. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. Final order : Acquitted u/s 364 A IPC
Convicted u/s 363 IPC
7. Date of institution : 10.11.2014
8. Date of such order : 27.01.2021
JUDGEMENT
1. Both accused have faced trial for committing offence u/s 363 and 364 A Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC".) on the allegations that they kidnapped one seven months old child namely Sajan.
Digitally signed by CHARU AGGARWAL CHARU Date: AGGARWAL 2021.02.02 17:41:34 +0530 State Vs. Manjeet Chauhan etc. 1 of 31
2. The FIR of this case was registered at the behest of one married lady Asha, who alongwith her husband, two minor children and mother in law is permanent resident of Darbanga, Bihar. The kidnapped child Sajjan is younger son of complainant Asha. At this stage, introduction of one more person namely Amit is also relevant to be mentioned, who is nephew (Bhanja) of complainant's husband Kangress Yadav.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant Asha while residing at her village Bihar suddenly started receiving missed calls on her mobile bearing No. 9570808088 from mobile No. 9958789044. One day, she picked the call received from mobile No. 9958789044 and the caller introduced himself as Ajay, friend of Amit (nephew of complainant's husband). Thereafter, the intimacy developed between complainant and said Ajay over phone. The complainant's husband got suspicious on the conduct of the complainant regarding her involvement with some boy; therefore, he changed her mobile number from 9570808088 to 7546870762. But, the complainant remembered the phone number of said Ajay; therefore, she started calling him from her new number. On 05.06.2014, the complainant after quarrelling with her mother in law left her village with her seven month old son Sajan for Delhi via Bihar Sampark Kranti train.
4. At this stage, it would be important to note that the complainant in her initial complaint narrated the different story of incident than what was stated by her in her subsequent statements recorded u/s 161 Cr P C by the IO and u/s 164 Cr P C recorded by the concerned Ld. MM. In the initial complaint Ex. PW1/C, the complainant stated that on 05.06.2014 while she alongwith her minor son Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2021.02.02 17:42:00 +0530 was travelling in train, one boy boarded the train from Mujjafarpur and became friendly with her. On reaching New Delhi Railway Station, the said boy in order to help the complainant in de-boarding the train, took her minor son in his lap. In the meantime, the complainant got down from the train, the said boy ran away with her minor child. However, the complainant in her subsequent statements recorded by the IO and in her statement u/s 164 Cr P C recorded by Ld. MM, gave different version of the incident as narrated in para No. 3 of this order that she(complainant) is permanent resident of Bihar. She got married with one Kangress Yadav five years back and is mother of two sons. She while residing at her village Bihar suddenly started receiving missed calls on her mobile bearing No. 9570808088 from mobile No. 9958789044. One day, she picked the call received from mobile No. 9958789044 and the caller introduced himself as Ajay, friend of Amit (nephew of complainant's husband). Thereafter, the intimacy developed between complainant and said Ajay over phone. The complainant's husband got suspicious on the conduct of the complainant regarding her involvement with some boy; therefore, he changed her mobile number from 9570808088 to 7546870762. But, the complainant remembered the phone number of said Ajay; therefore, she started calling him from her new number. On
05.06.2014, the complainant after quarrelling with her mother in law left her village with her seven month old son Sajan for Delhi via Bihar Sampark Kranti train. She received a telephonic call from Ajay in train. Complainant informed Ajay that she after quarrelling with her mother in law is coming to Delhi. Ajay asked her to make a telephonic call to him when she reached Delhi. Accordingly, complainant after reaching Delhi made a phone call to Ajay, who met her at New Delhi Railway Station. She handed over the child to him (Ajay) to look after the Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL State Vs. Manjeet Chauhan etc. AGGARWAL Date: 2021.02.02 17:42:15 +0530 3 of 31 child since the complainant had to wash the cloths of the child at the platform. After sometime, Ajay and complainant alongwith the child came out of the platform. The battery of complainant's phone was running out therefore, she went to buy charger for her mobile phone. When she came back after purchasing the charger, she found that Ajay and her child were missing. The complainant started searching them and made phone calls to Ajay but despite her best efforts neither Ajay nor child were found. Thereafter, she called her husband and informed him about the entire incident. Her husband further informed the incident to his relatives residing at Narela who immediately reached at New Delhi Railway Station. Thereafter, complainant's husband also reached Delhi and they all started searching the minor child but the child could not be found. During this period, Ajay and complainant were continuously in touch with each other over telephone and Ajay was calling the complainant and her husband at various places on the pretext of handing over the custody of the complainant's child to her but he(Ajay) himself never reached at those places. Thereafter, the police complaint dated 14.06.2014 was lodged by the complainant at police station New Delhi Railway Station on which the investigation was carried out by the police. Police also made enquiries from the complainant's husband's nephew Amit but he showed his complete ignorance regarding the identity of Ajay. During investigation police analyzed the Call Detail Record of the mobile phone 9958789044(the number from which complainant used to receive calls from Ajay). During the analysis of call details record of mobile No. 9958789044, the police found that the user was continuously in touch with another phone bearing No. 9910005031. Amit informed the police that phone bearing No. 9910005031 is used by his employer Hans Raj Tanwer. Police Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2021.02.02 17:42:26 +0530 made enquiries from Hans Raj Tanwar who disclosed that phone bearing No. 9958789044 belongs to his Ex-driver Manjeet Chauhan (one of the accused herein). Hans Raj Tanwar said that Manjeet Chauhan was his Ex-driver therefore, he is not aware about his present whereabouts but he disclosed name of one Manoj who was known to Manjeet Chauhan. The said Manoj was also driver on some other water tanker. Police made enquiries from said Manoj who disclosed that Manjeet Chauhan is his co-villager and they both are resident of Etta, U.P. Manoj also informed that once Manjeet Chauhan came to his house with one small child. Manoj Kumar Yadav led the police, complainant and her husband to the house of Manjeet Chauhan at Etta, U.P. but there neither accused Manjeet Chauhan nor the kidnapped child were found. Delhi police gave their application at concerned police station at Etta regarding requirement of accused Manjeet Chauhan in this case. On 22.06.2014 Delhi police received telephonic information that accused Manjeet Chauhan is seen at his village at Etta. On receiving this information, Delhi police on 23.06.2014 reached at concerned police station at Etta, UP where the complainant immediately on seeing accused Manjeet Chauhan identified him as Ajay Sharma who took her child from her. The concerned police at Etta, U.P. had also apprehended co- accused Raju Prajapati. Ajay Sharma was interrogated by the police who disclosed his real name as Manjeet Chauhan and also disclosed that he alongwith co-accused Raja Prajapati kidnapped the child of complainant. Regarding the child they disclosed that the child was given by them at Muradabad bus stand to one lady namely Laxmi. Police alongwith both accused reached at bus stand Muradabad, U.P. but there neither the said lady Laxmi nor the child were found. Police kept searching the child but all in vain and one day Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL State Vs. Manjeet Chauhan etc. AGGARWAL Date: 2021.02.02 17:42:41 +0530 5 of 31 during searching the child they reached at the house of Mausa (uncle) of accused Raju Prajapati at Aligarh UP where also the accused persons had taken the child. The said Rajender Prajapati disclosed to the police that both the accused brought the child at his house and said that the child is of Manjeet Chauhan. The accused persons again started saying that the child was given by them to one lady at Murdabad U.P. Police started searching the child at Muradabad bus stand where the shopkeepers disclosed that on the night of 09.06.2014 one lady alongwith one minor child was roaming around the shops and was saying that some unknown person has handed over her the child and ran away. The shopkeepers also said that the said lady was asking about the police station, therefore, she must have gone there. The police reached at police station Kotwali, Muradabad U.P. where concerned police told to Delhi police that on 09/10.06.2014 one Vandana Yadav W/o Sh. Ashok Kumar Yadav R/o District Bisoli, U.P. having phone No. 9627223139 alongwith one small child came to police station and she informed the police that the said child was given to her by some unknown person. The child was very small, therefore, he was given back to Vandana Yadav to look after. On receiving this information, police reached at the house of Vandana Yadav. On seeing both accused, she started scolding both the accused and informed the police that she has handed over the child to her relative Dropadi R/o PS Aliganj, Distt. Bareli, U.P. Thereafter, police reached at the house of Dropadi where several persons of the village came. On seeing the police, the said Dropadi and the villagers started misbehaving with the police that the child is being properly looked after by Dropadi and she is looking after the child like her own child, therefore, she alongwith other villagers resisted to take the child with them. However, with the intervention of the police the complainant Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2021.02.02 17:42:52 +0530 succeeded in bringing the child back alongwith her. Accused persons demanded Rs.20,000/- from the complainant in order to release her child.
5. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed by the IO in the concerned court of Ld. MM who after compliance of provisions of Section 207 Cr P C committed the case to Sessions.
6. Vide order dated 03.12.2014 charge u/s 363 and 364 A IPC was framed against both the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. In order to prove its case prosecution has examined as many as 34 witnesses.
Public witnesses :-
8. PW1 is complainant Arti Devi, who has deposed on the same lines as the case of the prosecution that she, is married having two sons. She has stated that she does not remember the date, month and year of the incident; however, at the time of incident her husband had given one mobile phone to her on which she used to receive missed calls from some unknown number. One day she picked the phone and asked the caller about his identity who introduced himself as Ajay, friend of her nephew Amit and started addressing her Mami. Ajay started making telephonic calls to her regularly. The fact of telephonic calls by Ajay was not disclosed by this PW to her nephew Amit. One day quarrel took place between this PW and her mother in law due to which she, without disclosing to her family, left her matrimonial home alongwith her younger son Sajan aged about seven months old. She left her home for Delhi by Sampark Kranti train. Digitally signed by
CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL
State Vs. Manjeet Chauhan etc. AGGARWAL Date: 2021.02.02
17:43:05 +0530 7 of 31
While travelling in the train, she received telephone call from Ajay and disclosed him the reason of leaving her house and told him that she is coming to Delhi. Ajay told her to give miss call when she reached Delhi. On reaching Delhi, she gave a missed call to Ajay who came at New Delhi Railway Station to receive her at platform No. 12. They identified each other from the colour of their clothes. They both came out of the railway station. The child was handed over by this PW to Ajay since she was carrying luggage. Her phone was running out of battery therefore, she went to purchase charger from the road side shops of railway station; when she came back she found Ajay alongwith her child was missing from there. She made telephonic calls to Ajay who informed her that he is hiring tempo and asked her to wait at the spot. But when Ajay did not turn up she went to look for him at the auto parking but there also he was not found. She again came back to the place from where she purchased charger, but Ajay was not found there also. She again started making phone calls to Ajay but his phone was switched off. She started crying. Public gathered there and she informed that her Bhanja had taken her son with him. Some public persons took her to nearby police station, where she informed the entire incident. She also informed the police that brother and Jija of her husband reside at Delhi and she was having their numbers. Police called her relatives who came at the police station and took her at their house at Narela. Brother of complainant's husband informed her husband about the incident who came at Delhi. Thereafter, this PW started receiving calls on her mobile phone from one of the friend of Ajay who threatened her that if she want her son back and when she asked to hand over her son the phone was disconnected and switched off by the caller. Thereafter, this PW alongwith her husband got registered the FIR of this case on her Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2021.02.02 17:43:16 +0530 complaint Ex. PW1/A dated 14.06.2014. She has stated that police made efforts to trace her son. After 5-6 days, she again received a call from Ajay and he asked her to come at designated place alone and told that he would come there with her son. This information was given by this PW to the police. Ajay did not come at the place where he had asked the complainant to reach. Thereafter after about 15 days Ajay again called this PW and asked her to reach at Chatterpur temple. She alongwith police visited Chatterpur temple but again Ajay did not reach there. He called her that he is at some other place ahead from Chatterpur temple. Complainant reached there but there also he was not found. After 2-3 days she again received a telephonic call from Ajay and he demanded ransom of Rs.20,000/- in lieu of release of her son Sajan and asked her to reach Rampur UP. The information was again passed over to the police. Again they reached at Rampur UP where also Ajay did not reach. Thereafter, police called Amit, nephew of complainant at police station who showed complete ignorance about Ajay. Police alongwith complainant and Amit went to the work place of Amit where Amit introduced one another person who was co-villager of Ajay and driver of tempo. The said co-villager was brought to police station. From police station this PW alongwith her husband and said person left for Etta , UP where also Ajay did not reach there where they found mother and Bhabhi of Ajay who also showed complete ignorance about the child of the complainant. When the police was in the process of leaving the village of Ajay, the villagers informed the police that Ajay had brought one young child with him claiming him to be his own son. Thereafter, police asked mother of Ajay to produce him. Thereafter, complainant and her husband alongwith police came back to Delhi. After reaching Delhi and after 2-3 days, complainant was informed that Ajay had been apprehended by Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL State Vs. Manjeet Chauhan etc. AGGARWAL Date: 2021.02.02 9 of 31 17:43:25 +0530 UP police at Etta. Delhi police alongwith complainant and her husband reached at Etta where on seeing Ajay at police station this PW identified him to be the same person who had kidnapped her son Sajan from New Delhi Railway Station. Ajay was interrogated who informed the police that he had left Sajjan with one Laxmi at village Basoli. Thereafter, accused Ajay led the police to village Basoli at UP where one lady Laxmi met them at tea stall on the road side. The lady namely Laxmi told the police that Ajay has not handed over any child. Thereafter, police reached at the house of Mausa of accused Ajay who informed the police that Ajay had come earlier with one child and said that the child belongs to him. Ajay disclosed his real name as Manjeet Chauhan. The police also apprehended co-accused Raja Prajapati. Both the accused were arrested. Disclosure statements of accused were recorded in pursuance of which the police reached at the house of one Smt. Vandana who produced child of this PW and stated that the said child was handed over to her on 09.06.2014 by Raja Prajapati at Muradabad bus stand. Thereafter, the child was taken into custody by the police and was produced before Child Welfare Committee, Delhi.
9. This PW did not disclose certain facts, therefore, Ld. APP put certain leading questions to the witness; firstly the date, month and year of the incident, secondly her mobile number used by her at the time of incident. She has stated that she was having apprehension that accused persons could have killed her son Sajan in case their ransom demand is not fulfilled and due to this she informed the police about the ransom call received by her. She has also stated that the mobile number used by her was bearing No. 9570808088 and 7546870762 and the number from which she was receiving the miss call was Digitally signed having mobile No. 9958789044. CHARU by CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2021.02.02 17:43:33 +0530
9. PW2 is the husband of the complainant namely Sh. Kangress Yadav and he has also deposed on the same lines as deposed by PW1.
10. PW3 Amit Kumar Yadav is nephew of complainant's husband, who has stated that he was driver at the Water tank of Hans Raj Tanwer. Complainant is his Mami. Accused Manjeet Chauhan took away the boy child of the complainant who was later on apprehended by the police. He has stated that mobile bearing No. 9910005031 and 9911195031 belongs to his owner Hans Raj.
11. PW4 is Umesh Yadav, father of PW3. He used to work as labour at Narela. About 1 ½ years back in the summer season he was present at his house at village Bihar. At that time PW2 Kangress, brother in law of this PW, informed him that his son is missing. This PW alongwith Kangress came to Delhi in search of his child. Kangress informed this PW that his wife Arti came to Delhi with his child who is missing. At that time this PW was having the mobile sim of Delhi number and on the request of Kangress he gave sim of Delhi number to him. He has stated that he does not remember the complete number of that sim but its last digit was 8075. This witness was cross-examined by Ld. APP and during cross-examination he admitted that the incident is of first week of June. He has admitted the suggestion given by Ld. APP that the person who had taken away the child was demanding money as a condition for return of the child. He has stated that the child was recovered by the police from the persons apprehended by them. He has stated that the mobile bearing No. 9990098075 was his Delhi number which was given by him to Kangress Yadav.
12. PW5 is Sushila Devi, mother in law of complainant, who has stated that her son Kangress Yadav had purchased one mobile No. 7546870762 and this Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL State Vs. Manjeet Chauhan etc. AGGARWAL Date: 2021.02.02 17:43:42 +0530 11 of 31 number is mentioned on her election ID. The said number was being used by her daughter in law Aari (complainant).
13. PW6 is Hans Raj, Master/owner of PW3 Amit. This PW has stated that he is in the business of plying water tankers. In the year 2014 accused Manjeet Chauhan used to drive one of his tanker. Mobile No.9958789044 belongs to Manjeet Chauhan. One Manoj was the driver of Kalka Mai Water Tanker supplier. Accused Manjeet Chauhan introduced Manoj with this PW by saying that Manjeet and Manoj are brothers.
14. PW12 is Manoj Kumar who has stated that in the year 2014 he was driver on the water tanker of Raju Singh. He got acquainted with accused Manjeet Chauhan while travelling in a bus. Accused Manjeet Chauhan used to drive water tanker of Raju Singh at that time. Manjeet Chauhan got him employment in the water tanker of one Ashok Dagar. After working for some days on the water tanker of Ashok Dager, this PW went to his village. After coming back to Delhi he again met Manjeet Chauhan who got him employed at the water tanker of Raju Singh. Thereafter, this PW started driving the tanker of Raju Singh since 06.06.2014. Accused Raju Prajapati also used to stay in the farm house of Raju Singh alongwith this PW. One Chet Ram also used to reside on the said farm House. On one occasion, wife of Chet Ram told this PW that accused Manjeet Chauhan came to farm house alongwith one child of 8/9 months old and after giving bath to the child he left. This PW contacted accused Manjeet Singh over telephone and asked him about the child, who told him that he is father of the child and has left the child with his wife now. On 16.06.2014 both accused herein again came to the farm house. Accused Manjeet asked for loan of Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2021.02.02 17:43:53 +0530 Rs.2,000/- from this PW but he denied. Accused Manjeet told him that presently he is driving at Gurgaon. On 18.06.2014, this PW accompanied the police to the house of accused Manjeet Chauhan where they have identified the photograph of Santosh, brother of Manjeet. Police prepared documents in this regard.
15. PW13 is Rajender Prajapati, Mausa of accused Prajapati. He has stated that he is permanent resident of Distt. Baduan, UP. Accused Raju Prajapati is his nephew. He has stated that in the month of June, 2014 he received message from his wife that accused Raju Prajapati and his friend Manjeet have brought one child of 8/9 months to their house. Upon receiving the message, this PW went to his house where he found that both accused have brought one child aged about 8/9 months. He enquired from Raju about the child who told that child is his nephew. This PW became suspicious and asked both the accused to take the child to his mother and did not allow them to keep the child in his house. Thereafter both the accused went away.
16. PW14 is Dropadi Devi who stated that she was having four daughters and one son. Her son aged about 14/15 years expired in the year 2011. Thereafter, she used to stay in her house. In the month of June, 2014, Vandana Yadav, Jethani of Chacheri Nand of this PW and her mother in law called this PW and told that some persons had left one small child with Vandana at Muradabad bus stand. The child was brought by this PW to her house and she started taking care of the child as her own son. She has stated that at the time custody of the child was given to her, he was having mark on the cheek as if he was beaten up. The child was got medically examined by this PW. After few months, police came to her house alongwith mother of the child who identified the child, Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2021.02.02 State Vs. Manjeet Chauhan etc. 17:44:01 +0530 13 of 31 with a heavy heart, the child was handed over by this witness to the police and the mother of child.
17. PW15 is Sh. Dharam Pal Singh Yadav, husband of PW14 Dropadi, who has also stated on the same lines as stated by PW14.
18. PW16 is Ashok Kumar Yadav, husband of Vandana. He has stated that on 10.06.2014 his wife Vandana Yadav brought one small child of few months to their house and told that some persons have handed over the said child to her at Muradabad bus stand on the pretext of going to bath room and did not return. She also informed to this PW that she took the child to PS Muradabad and informed everything to the police however, the police handed over the custody of the child to her and noted down her name, address and phone number with instructions that they will inform if somebody comes for the search of the child.
19. PW17 is Vandana Yadav who has also stated on the same lines as stated by PW16.
20. PW19 is Collector Singh who has stated that Dharam Pal Singh Yadav is his Sadhu and Dropadi Devi is the elder sister of his wife. Son of Dropadi Devi had expired in the year 2011 due to which she was in depression. In the month of June, 2014 they brought one child from the house of their relative Vandana and they celebrated on bringing the said child and distributed the sweets in the village. They were taking care of the child as their own son but later on police came to the village alongwith the parents of the child and the child was taken Digitally signed away by them. by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2021.02.02 17:44:08 +0530
21. PW20 Ram Rattan Singh, PW21 Bhoom Singh and PW22 Girand Pal are co-villagers of Dropadi and Dharam Pal Yadav, who have also stated on the same lines as stated by PW19.
Police witnesses : -
22. PW8 is SI Ashok Kumar who has stated that on the intervening night of 13/14.06.2014, he was posted at police station New Delhi Railway Station. On that day complainant and her husband made police complaint Ex. PW1/A regarding abduction of their son Sajan. This PW made endorsement on the complaint and prepared the ruqqa. Ruqqa was handed over to duty officer HC Jai Bhagwan for registration of FIR. After registration of FIR the investigation was handed over to ASI Surender Singh.
23. PW11 is ASI Jai Bhagwan, who on 13/14.06.2014 was posted as duty officer at police station New Delhi Railway Station, who got registered the FIR of this case as Ex. PW11/A. He issued certificate u/s 65 B (Ex. PW11/B) regarding registration of FIR.
24. PW18 is P.K.G.A. Naidu who on 08, 06.2014 was posted at New Delhi Railway Station. He has stated that on 28.01.2014 on the directions of senior officer he took out the CCTV footage of platform No. 12 of Camera No.19 dated 06.06.2014 from the original system installed there. The CCTV footage was transferred into a CD. The CD alongwith certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act was handed over by this PW to IO.
Digitally signedby CHARU
CHARU AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2021.02.02
17:44:18 +0530
State Vs. Manjeet Chauhan etc. 15 of 31
25. PW23 is HC Ramesh Chand who in the year 2014 was posted at PS New Delhi Railway Station. On instructions of senior officers this PW went to Bihar on 28.08.2014 where he recorded statement of various public persons.
26. PW24 is SI Dinesh Kumar who has stated that on 09.06.2014 he was posted at police station Kotwali, Muradabad, U.P. and was on night duty on that day, when one lady came to police station with one 8/9 months old child and informed this PW that at the bus stand of Muradabad one person had given the child to her for some time on the pretext that he is going to bathroom but he did not return back. The said lady disclosed her name as Vandana Yadav R/o Bisoli District, Buduan UP and she also gave her mobile number. On the suggestion of this PW the child was kept by Vandana Yadav with her to look after the child and he told Vandana Yadav that if parents of the child will contact him he will inform her. He noted the phone number and residential address.
27. PW25 is SI Surinder Singh who has stated that on 14.06.2014 he was posted at police station New Delhi Railway Station. On that day duty officer handed over him copy of FIR and one ruqqa for investigation. This PW prepared the site plan Ex. PW25/A at the instance of complainant Aarti. This PW put the mobile number of Aarti on surveillance. He also got published hue and cry notice about which on 15.06.2014 investigation of this case was marked to SI Saroj Tiwari. On 16.06.2014 Kangress Yadav handed over the copies of railway ticket of Arti and his original railway ticket. On 28.06.2014 this PW alongwith other police officials examined the CCTV footage of the date of incident at New Delhi Railway Station and SI P.K.G.A. Naidu handed over the CD containing the relevant CCTV footage to SI Saroj Tiwari.
Digitally signedby CHARU
CHARU AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2021.02.02
17:44:27 +0530
28. PW27 is Const. Narender, PW28 is Const. Jugal Bhatti PW29 HC
Rajender who in the year 2014, were posted at police station New Delhi Railway Station. They have stated that on 24.06.2014 they alongwith SI Saroj Tiwari alongwith complainant Arti and her husband Congress Yadav and both the accused persons left police station in Innova car and reached at bus stand Muradabad U.P. where they all tried to search Laxmi and came to know that on 09.06.2014 one lady was carrying 8/9 months old child and was saying that somebody had left the child with her. Thereafter, all these persons reached Kotwali, Muradabad where on enquiry they came to know that on 09.06.2014 one lady Vandana Yadav had brought one child to police station and child is still in her possession. After obtaining the address of Vandana Yadav from police station Kotwali they all reached at her house at Bisoli, U.P. and asked her about the child. Vandana Yadav and her husband Ashok Yadav led the team to VPO Kalyan Pur, PS Aliganj, Bareli, U.P. at the house of Dharam Pal Yadav where Dharam Pal Yadav and his wife Dropadi both met them and child was with them in their possession. Villagers also gathered there. Complainant Arti identified her child and the child was recovered vide recovery memo Ex. PW1/H. Thereafter, they all came to Delhi.
29. PW30 is SI Ranbir Singh who has stated that on 09.06.2014 he was posted as const. at PS Katghar, District Muradabad, U.P. when one lady Vandana Yadav W/o Ashok Yadav came in the police station alongwith 8-9 months old child and told that she was waiting at the bus stand of Muradabad when one person came and handed over the child to her on the pretext that he is going to bathroom but he did not come back. This PW gave the information to SI Dinesh Kumar. SI Dinesh Kumar passed the information to police control room.
State Vs. Manjeet Chauhan etc.
CHARU Digitally signed by CHARU
AGGARWAL
17 of 31
AGGARWAL Date: 2021.02.02 17:44:38 +0530
The child was young, therefore, he was handed over to Vandana Yadav to look after. The details of the lady were noted down.
30. PW34 is Inspector Saroj Tiwari (IO) who has stated that on 16.06.2014 he was posted at New Delhi Railway Station. She recorded the statement of complainant and her husband, seized their original railway tickets. On the basis of their version and interrogation of relevant documents she came to know that the kidnapper of the child was driver of the water tanker of one Hans Raj Tanwar. This PW talked to said Hans Raj Tanwar who informed him (this PW) that kidnapper is Manjeet Chauhan and not Ajay Sharma. He also informed that one Manoj Kumar, driver of another water tanker, having Jai Kala Mai written over it disclosed to Manjeet Chauhan. Thereafter, this PW alongwith other police staff searched Manoj Kumar who met them and disclosed that he know Manjeet Chauhan. After obtaining the necessary permission, the police team proceeded towards the village of Manjeet Chauhan on 17.06.2014 at District Etta, U.P. where Manoj identified the house of Manjjet Chauhan. The family of Manjeet Chauhan shown their ignorance about visit of Manjeet Chauhan in the village, however, some of the villager informed that Manjeet Chauhan had visited the house with a small child recently. Thereafter, this PW went to police post Dhumri and informed the incharge of police post about entire situation and requested to search accused and the kidnapped child. Thereafter, the police team came back to Delhi. The complainant and her husband again went to police station and informed about demand of ransom to this their supplementary statement u/s 161 Cr P C was recorded. Pursuant to this, Section 364A IPC was added in this case. On 22.06.2014 the police came to know that Manjeet Chauhan had been seen in his house. The police team alongwith complainant and her husband again Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2021.02.02 17:44:53 +0530 reached at Police post Dhumri on 23.06.2014 early morning where they came to know that Manjeet Chauhan and one of his friends has been apprehended by the police of police station Jaithra. The police went to police station Jaithra where the complainant identified Ajay Sharma who took her child from her at New Delhi Railway Station. Initially Manjeet Chauhan refused to identify Arti but later on he accepted his guilt and informed that he has given the child to one lady Laxmi at bus stand Bikoli . The police team alongwith both accused proceed towards Bikoli and searched that lady Laxmi but they did not get any clue. Thereafter, they went to the house of one Rajender Prajapati relative of Raju Prajapati at Aligarh, U.P. where also they came to know that both accused had come shortly with one small child and had gone to some unknown place. Thereafter, all above mentioned persons came back to Delhi. Police took both accused. On 24/25.06.2014, police team alongwith accused persons, complainant and her husband went to Muradabad. On enquiry they went to PS Kathgarh, Kotwali, Muradabad where they came to know that one lady Vandana Yadav had brought a small child in the morning of 10.06.2014 and child is still with her. Thereafter, the entire team reached at the house of Vandana at Bisoli . Vandana Yadav identified accused Raju Prajapati who had given the child to her on the pretext of going to toilet. She informed that now the child is with her one relative Dropadi Yadav at Aliganj, District U.P. The entire police team alongwith other persons, complainant and her husband went to the house of Dropadi where the child was with her. PW1 Arti identified the child as of her own. Co-villagers gathered at the spot. Dropadi and co-villagers started making hue and cry saying that Dropadi is looking after the child as her own and she is emotionally attached with her. However, with great efforts the child was recovered and handed over to PW1. Digitally signed by
CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL
State Vs. Manjeet Chauhan etc. AGGARWAL Date: 2021.02.02 19 of 31
17:45:03 +0530
Thereafter, this PW conducted the remaining investigation by collecting the CDRs of all relevant mobile numbers, got recorded statement u/s 164 Cr P C of the complainant, prepared the charge-sheet and filed in the Court. Other witness: -
31. PW7 is Sh. Israr Babu, Nodal Officer, Vadafone Mobile services. This witness brought the original record of three mobile numbers 9899825027, 7546870762 and 9570808088. The customer application form of all these phone numbers have been produced and exhibited as Ex. PW7/A, PW7/E and PW7/I respectively. Mobile No. 9899825027 was in the name of Hans Raj, Mobile No. 7546870762 was in the name of Sushila Devi and mobile No. 9570808088 in the name of Avinash Kumar. He also brought the CDR of all these three numbers w.e.f. 01.02.2014 to 23.06.2014 respectively. He has also brought certificate u/s 65 B regarding the same.
32. PW9 is Chander Shekhar Nodal Officer from Bharti Airtel. He has brought the record of mobile No. 989958789044. As per record brought by him, the said number was in the name of Manjeet Chauhan. He also brought the call detail record of this mobile number for the period w.e.f. 01.02.2014 to 23.06.2014.
33. PW10 is Sh. Pawan Singh, Nodal officer from IDR. He has brought the record of mobile No. 9718645729. As per the record brought by him, this number was in the name of Raju S/o Sh. Karan Singh. He has also brought the call details record of this number w.e.f. 01.02.2014 to 23.06.2014. This PW also brought the record of mobile No. 9990098075. As per the record brought by him, Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2021.02.02 17:45:16 +0530 this mobile was in the name of one Umesh Yadav. He has also brought the call detail record for the period w.e.f. 01.02.2014 to 23.06.2014.
34. PW26 is Sh. Niral Bhola who has stated that on 07.08.2014 he was running a photo studio at Pahar Ganj, Delhi. On that day police handed over to him one CD containing CCTV footage. On asking of the police this PW prepared the photographs from the CCTV footage in the CD. The photographs are Ex. PW26/A to Ex. PW26/B.
35. PW31 is Sh. Santosh Paswan who has stated that in the year 2009 one employment fair was organized at ITI ground, Niharia Saria where stalls of different mobile companies were also there. He purchased one sim card of mobile No. 9570808088 from stall of Vodafone Company. This number was given by this PW to his driver Kangress Yadav.
36. PW32 is Sh. Avinash Kumar who has stated that he is resident of Bihar. In the year 2008 he purchased one sim card of mobile No. 9570808088 from Vodafone Company from one shop. After 2/3 months when the balance was exhausted this PW stopped using this number. He has stated that in the year 2016 police came to him and enquired about his telephone number and shown to him the application form and sim card. This PW told the police that copy of voter ID card alongwith application form belongs to him but the application do not bear his signatures. He stated that he cannot say as to who has used the said mobile number on his ID.
37. PW33 is Prashant Kumar Nodal officer from Vodafone Idea. He brought the original record of mobile No. 9899825027. As per the record, the said number was in the name of Hans Raj. He has brought the call detail record of Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL State Vs. Manjeet Chauhan etc. AGGARWAL Date: 2021.02.02 21 of 31 17:45:30 +0530 this mobile number w.e.f. 01.02.2014 to 23.06.2014. All the witnesses were cross-examined by the Ld. Defense counsel for both accused persons.
38. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement u/s 313 Cr P C of the accused persons was recorded to which they pleaded their innocence and stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case.
39. I have heard Ld. Addl. PP for State and Ms. Sadhna Bhatia, Ld. Amicus Curiae for both accused persons.
40. Ld. Addl. PP has argued that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. All the prosecution witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution to the hilt and nothing could be seen in their testimony creating iota of doubt on the case of the prosecution. Ld. Addl. PP has further argued that prosecution witnesses have proved that the child was kidnapped by the accused persons from the custody of PW1 Arti; recovery of the child from the possession of Dropadi is also argued to be proved by the prosecution. Ld. Addl. PP has also submitted that PW1 Aarti, most material witness of the prosecution, has categorically deposed in her testimony that accused persons demanded ransom of Rs.20,000/- from her as a condition to return her minor child by the accused persons. He has argued that demand of ransom is sufficient to bring the case within the purview of Section 364 A IPC hence he submitted that both accused be convicted for both the offences charged u/s 363/364 A IPC.
41. Ld. Amicus Curiae has argued that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt primarily on the ground that PW1 is not at all reliable witness since in her initial statement (Ex. PW1/A) she narrated different story regarding missing of her child and gave a total different version in her Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2021.02.02 17:45:46 +0530 subsequent statements recorded u/s 161 Cr P C 164 Cr P C and in the Court. She denied her entire version about missing of her child. Ld. Amicus Curiae has argued that PW1 in her initial statement stated that one Ajay Sharma met her during journey from Bihar to Delhi; in her subsequent statement and even in the her statement to the Court she stated that she was already acquainted with Ajay Sharma. Ld. Amicus Curiae submitted that credibility of witness in criminal cases plays a pivotal role since the criminal cases are decided on oral testimony and not on documentary evidence. She has argued that even the factum of ransom is also important in the case of the prosecution at subsequent stage since PW1 in her initial statement Ex. PW1/A nowhere even whisper about the demand of ransom but this fact was subsequently added in her statement recorded later on. Ld. Amicus Curiae has also emphasised that after arrest of the accused persons their TIP was not conducted which also creates doubt on the case of the prosecution.
42. I have considered rival contentions made by Ld. Addl. PP for State and Ms. Sadhna Bhatia Ld. Amicus Curiae for both accused persons.
43. Both accused are charged for offence u/s 363 and 364 A IPC. The common ingredient of both the Sections is kidnapping. In order to prove kidnapping, the prosecution was required to prove that the accused persons took away the minor child of complainant (PW1 Aarti) from her lawful custody without her consent.
44. PW1 is the most material witness of the prosecution who supported the case of the prosecution, to the hilt. She in her deposition has stated that she is permanent resident of Bihar. 3/4 months prior to recording of her testimony (her Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL State Vs. Manjeet Chauhan etc. AGGARWAL Date: 2021.02.02 23 of 31 17:45:57 +0530 testimony was recorded in February, 2015) she started receiving phone calls from mobile bearing No. 9958789044 on her mobile No. 9570808088. The caller introduced himself as Ajay, friend of complainant's nephew Amit. They both developed intimacy over phone. Her husband Kangress Yadav (PW2) got suspicious about her relationship; therefore, he changed the mobile number of complainant from 9570808088 to 7546870762. Complainant despite changing of her mobile number continued to talk with said Ajay. On 05.06.2014, she had quarrel with her mother in law due to which she alongwith her minor seven months old son namely Sajan left for Delhi via train. On 05.06.2014 she sat in Darbanga train for Delhi and reached there in the morning of 06.06.2014. At the platform she met Ajay. They both spent some time at railway station. At that time minor son of the complainant remained in the lap of Ajay. After sometime they came out of the platform. Complainant went in a shop to buy a charger for her mobile leaving her son with Ajay. When she came back she found that Ajay and her son both were missing. She started searching for them but despite efforts she could not find them. Thereafter, she made a call to her husband. Her husband informed his relatives residing at Narela. All their relatives reached at police station New Delhi Railway Station and took the complainant with them. As per complainant, in between 06.06.2014 to 14.06.2014 she was receiving phone calls from the kidnappers from mobile numbers. 9958789044 and 9718645729 and they were calling her at one or the other place. Complainant reached at every place where she was called by the accused persons but they themselves never reached there. Finding no other option, complainant lodged her complaint (Ex. PW1/A) dated 14.06.2014 at police station New Delhi Railway Station regarding missing of her child Sajan. At this moment of time, criminal machinery Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2021.02.02 17:46:07 +0530 came into motion and the investigation of the case started. At this stage, it would be relevant to mention that in the complaint Ex. PW1/A, complainant gave different version of missing of her child by saying that while she was travelling on train, a boy boarded the train and became friendly with her and her minor child. Several times he took child in his lap and when train reached at New Delhi Railway Station complainant was having luggage with her, therefore, she gave her child in the lap of said boy Ajay so that she may comfortably de-board the train. During this moment of time the said boy Ajay took away the minor child from her. However, complainant in her subsequent statements recorded u/s 161 Cr P C, u/s 164 Cr P C by Ld. MM and in the Court disclosed the facts that she was acquainted with Ajay prior to 05.06.2014 due to her intimacy with him over phone from last few months. Due to this different version of story given by complainant in her complaint Ex. PW1/A and in her subsequent statements recorded u/s 161 Cr P C, u/s 164 Cr P C & before the Court, Ld. Amicus Curie argued that complainant is not trust worthy and conviction of the accused persons cannot be based on her testimony. The contradiction pointed out by Ld. Amicus Curiae in the version of PW1 complainant regarding missing of her child is minor discrepancy and it is settled law that the case of the prosecution cannot be thrown out on minor variations in the statement of the witnesses, if testimony of the witness is otherwise consistent and cogent on the material aspect of the matter. Here, though PW1 gave different stories about her relationship with Ajay in her initial statement and in her subsequent statements but she is consistent and cogent on the fact that her minor son was taken away by said Ajay from her custody without her consent and knowledge. The consistent testimony of PW1 on the important aspect that custody of her child was taken away by Ajay @ Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2021.02.02 State Vs. Manjeet Chauhan etc. 17:46:17 +0530 25 of 31 Manjeet Chauhan (accused herein) cannot be overturned by the Court only due to minor discrepancy in her testimony on insignificant facts regarding her relationship with said Ajay. In an Indian society it is natural that a married lady having attraction towards another man out of her marriage, suppress her relationship from the society due to fear that his marriage may spoil because of her said relationship and the society will never accept her such relationship with an outsider. The conduct of PW1 that she also tried to hide her relationship with Ajay in her complaint Ex. PW1/A is natural on her part and it would not make the witness unreliable. It is again reiterated here that PW1 had remained consistent on the fact that her child was taken away by Ajay @ Manjeet Chauhan from her custody without her consent. Nothing has come in the cross-examination of PW1 creating doubt on her statement on the fact that Ajay @ Manjeet Chauhan has taken away her child from her. Testimony of other witnesses i.e. PW2 Sh. Kangress Yadav, husband of complainant, PW3 Amit Kumar Yadav, nephew of complainant, PW4 Umesh Yadav, brother in law and PW5 Smt. Sushila Devi, mother in law of complainant is corroborating the testimony of PW1 on all material aspects. PW5 mother in law of complainant has stated that complainant was using mobile No. 7546870762 on her election ID card. PW2 Kangress Yadav has also stated that on the day of incident he had given phone to his wife. His wife who used to talk with some unknown male person due to which he changed her number. On 05.06.2014 his wife left Darbanga informing his mother that she is going for the treatment of her son. On the next day he came to know that his wife had gone to Delhi. He talked with his wife and she informed him that their son Sajan was missing and was handed over her son to some person in Delhi. Thereafter, this PW made a call to his brother in law Chotu Yadav who at Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2021.02.02 17:46:28 +0530 that time used to reside at Narela. Chotu Yadav reached at police station Pahar Ganj and took PW1 to his residence. On 09.06.2014 this PW also reached Narela. Thereafter, they all went to police station New Delhi Railway Station and lodged their complaint Ex. PW1/A. The testimony of PW1 to PW5 proves the case of the prosecution that the minor child of the complainant was kidnapped.
45. Now, the question comes regarding the identity of the accused Ajay @ Manjeet Chauhan who introduced himself to the complainant as Ajay. During investigation, police analyzed the call detail record of mobile No. 9570808088 and 7546870762 both used by complainant and mobile bearing No. 9958789044 used by said Ajay @ Manjeet Chauhan. The police found that the caller of mobile No. 9958789044 was in continuous touch with mobile No. 9910005031 registered in the name of one Hans Raj Tanwar. The police reached to said Hans Raj Tanwar who was found to be Ex-employer of accused Ajay @ Manjeet Chauhan. PW6 Sh. Hans Raj Tanwar informed the police that the mobile bearing No. 9958789044 belongs to his Ex-employee Manjeet Chauhan. Sh. Hans Raj Tanwar also disclosed that one Manoj Kumar working on some other water tanker is brother of Manjeet Chauhan. With the help of PW6 Sh. Hans Raj Tanwar police reached to Manoj Kumar who disclosed that Manjeet Chauhan belongs to his village and the police alongwith said Manoj reached at the house of Manjeet Chauhan. Manjeet Chauhan was not found at his village and his family also shown ignorance about his visit to village, however, some of the villagers informed Delhi Police that Manjeet Chauhan recently came with one minor child to the village at Etta, U.P. Delhi police gave this information to local police of Etta, U.P. After few days Delhi police received information that accused Manjeet Chauhan alongwith his associate Raju has been apprehended. Delhi Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL State Vs. Manjeet Chauhan etc. AGGARWAL Date: 2021.02.02 27 of 31 17:46:38 +0530 police reached at the police station Etta, U.P. alongwith complainant where complainant on seeing Manjeet Chauhan immediately identified him as Ajay who met her at railway station and took her child from her without her consent. All the facts narrated above have been deposed by PW1 in her testimony that how they reached at Etta, U.P. and she correctly identified accused Manjeet Chauhan as Ajay who took her child from her. Testimony of PW1 on the identification of accused Manjeet Chauhan has remained un-challenged and uncontroverted hence it stands proved that accused Ajay took away the custody of minor child Sajan from PW1 without her consent. So far as, the role of co-accused Raju Prajapati is concerned for this recovery of minor child and the calls made by the kidnappers to PW1 Aarti are relevant to be discussed. As per the case of the prosecution and the testimony of PW1 the kidnappers used to make call to PW1 from mobile No. 9718645729 which was found registered in the name of accused Raju Prajapati. The active role of accused Raju Prajapati in the crime is further clear from the testimony of PW17 Vandana Yadav who is most material witness on the aspect of recovery of the child. She has stated in her testimony that on 10.06.2014 she was present at bus stand at Muradabad, U.P. and at that time one boy came to her and handed over the custody of 7/8 months child to her on the pretext that he is going to bathroom and thereafter the said boy did not come back. Vandana Yadav took the child to police station Muradabad where the police after noting down her address and mobile number handed over the child to Vandana Yadav for looking after as the child was 7/8 months and they cannot look after him. When the police officials alongwith complainant, her family and accused persons reached at the house of PW17 Vandana Yadav she identified co-accused Raju Prajapati as the same person who handed over the Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2021.02.02 17:46:48 +0530 custody of minor child to her. The testimony of PW17 Vandana Yadav and the call details of mobile bearing No. 9718645729 from which the calls were made to complainant at mobile bearing No. 9990098075 clearly prove the role of co- accused Raju Prajapati in the crime. PW17 Vandana has deposed that she handed over the custody of minor child to her relative Smt. Dropadi since Dropadi has recently lost her son due to which she was in depression and in order to help her, Vandana handed over the minor child to Dropadi. With the help of Vandana Yadav police reached at the house of Dropadi where the minor child of the complainant was found. The recovery of child is duly proved by PW14 Dropadi Devi, PW15 Dharam Pal Yadav, PW16 Ashok Kumar Yadav, PW17 Vandana and PW19 to PW22 who have categorically deposed that the police reached at their village and took away the custody of minor child from Dropadi Devi and handed over the same to complainant. In this way, the prosecution has successfully proved that the minor child of the complainant was kidnapped by both the accused persons. Charge u/s 363 IPC is proved against both the accused persons.
46. The accused persons are also charged for the offence u/s 364 A IPC. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons for the offence u/s 364 A IPC, the prosecution is required to prove that the child was kidnapped by the accused persons for ransom. As per the charge=sheet, the accused persons demanded Rs.20,000/- from the complainant to release her son. One of the important ingredients of Section 364 A IPC is that the ransom was demanded by the assailants of the crime by threatening to cause death or hurt to the kidnapped person or give reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt. In the case in hand, the case of the prosecution is simplicitor for Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL State Vs. Manjeet Chauhan etc. AGGARWAL Date: 2021.02.02 29 of 31 17:47:03 +0530 demand of Rs.20,000/- since as per the charge-sheet itself the accused persons never threatened complainant that her son would be put to death or would be hurt by them. Without going into the controversy of threat of death or hurt to the kidnapped child, this court would like to note that the version of PW1 complainant regarding demand of Rs.20,000/- is contrary to the record. The child was kidnapped on 06.06.2014. For the initial period of time the complainant and her family kept on searching the child but despite their best effort when the child was not found they lodged the complaint at police station New Delhi Railway station on 14.06.2014. The call details record of mobile bearing No. 9958789044 used by accused Manjeet Chauhan shows that he talked to complainant lastly on 06.06.2014 only. As per the case of the prosecution and testimony of PW1, after 06.06.014, she started receiving calls from mobile No. 9718645729 on her mobile No. 9990098075. She lastly received call from mobile No. 9718645729 on 11.06.2014. As already mentioned that complainant lodged her complaint on 14.06.2014 but in her said complaint she did not disclose the fact of demand of ransom by the assailants of the crime but she first time disclosed this fact to the police in her supplementary statement u/s 161 Cr P C recorded on 21.06.2014. Surprisingly, as already noted above that after 11.06.2014 PW1 never received a call from kidnappers, therefore, her statement recorded on 21.06.2014 that kidnappers are demanding Rs.20,000/- as also so deposed by her testimony in the Court that after 5-6 days from the day of reporting the matter to the police kidnappers demanded Rs.20,000/- from her becomes doubtful. Otherwise also, as per deposition of all the witnesses, it is clear that the child was not physically harmed by the kidnappers at any point of time. As per the testimony of PW17 Vandana Yadav accused Raju Prajapati on 10.06.2014 handed over the custody Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date: 2021.02.02 17:47:12 +0530 of the child to her. Thereafter, the child was recovered from the possession of one Dropadi Devi and not from the accused persons. This also clearly shows that accused persons never had intention to harm the child or to cause his death or hurt as the custody of the child was handed over by them to some unknown person immediately after six days of the kidnapping. Had their intention was to kill or harm the child for ransom, they never would have parted with the custody of the child. In view of all these facts and circumstances of the case, prosecution has failed to prove the case u/s 364 A IPC against the accused persons for which they deserve to be given benefit of doubt.
47. In view of aforesaid discussion, accused persons are convicted for the offence u/s 363 IPC only and they are acquitted for offence u/s 364 A IPC as the prosecution has remained unsuccessful in bringing home the guilt against them for the said offence. List the case for hearing the convict on the point of sentence on 30.01.2021.
Digitally signedby CHARU
(Announced through Cisco Webex on CHARU AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
27.01.2021) 2021.02.02
17:47:20 +0530
(CHARU AGGARWAL)
ASJ-02, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI.
State Vs. Manjeet Chauhan etc. 31 of 31