Delhi District Court
State vs . on 22 December, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH TEWARI ASJVI(OUTER),
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
SC NO. 45/10
FIR NO. 142/05
U/S 363/364A/34 IPC
PS S.P.Badlil
Unique Case ID No. : 02404R0264442006
State
Vs.
1. Ravinder Singh @ Sonu
S/o. Late Savinder Singh
R/o. C 6/15, Model TownIII,
Delhi19.
2. Satish Kumar
S/o.Mamraj Choudhary
R/o. 272, Gali No. 1,
Village Gopalpur, PS Timarpur,
Delhi.
3. Sunil Yadav
S/o.Ram Kishan Yadav
R/o. 50 A, main Bawana Road,
Samaipur, Delhi42.
SC No. 45/10 Page 1/23
Date when committed to the court of Sessions 31.05.2005
Date when case reserved for judgment : 29.11.2012
Judgment pronounced on : 22.12.2012
JUDGMENT:
1. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 28.02.05, DD No. 3A was assigned to SI Dhruv Narain regarding the kidnapping of a boy and accordingly, the SI along with Ct. Kamal Singh reached the spot at Khasra No.299/01, Gali No.1, Kushak Road No. 2 within the jurisdiction of PS S.P.Badli where one Ms. Anju Kumari got recorded her statement.
2. As per statement of the said complainant, she was residing at J 130, Gali No.1, Kushak Road No.2, Swarup Nagar, Delhi and is having three brothers namely Amit, Ajeet and Abhay and that on 28.02.05 at about 7.10 a.m., her brother Amit, as usual has gone to his school named Jyoti Model Sr. Secondary School, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi who was a th student of 8 class and at about 7.20 a.m., on girl named Rinki th student of the same school of 7 class, came to their house and told her that her brother Abhay had been kidnapped from ganda nala, Pushta Road, near temple of Swarup Nagar in a SC No. 45/10 Page 2/23 white colour maruti car by the same person who quarreled with her some days ago and the number plate of the said car was bent and there were 2/3 persons also sitting in the said car and she had a doubt that her brother had been kidnapped by the family members of Harnam Singh and his associates who is working as a broker in the fruit market, Azad Pur.
3. On the basis of the said statement, the FIR was got registered u/s. 363/34 IPC and during investigation, site plan was prepared and brother of said complainant Ajeet Singh came to the spot and informed the SI that he had received a phone call from the kidnappers who had demanded Rs. 5 lacs as ransom for the release of the said kidnapped child Abhay and the said information was passed on to the SHO who sent 3 constables to the spot and thereafter, the said ransom amount was got prepared and four wads of currency notes wherein the upper and bottom currency notes of Rs.500/ each were kept in original and in between only computerized paper were fixed and in the meantime, again a phone call was received that said ransom amount to be brought at Nirankari Sant Samagam, Jahangir Puri Road and thereafter, Ct. Pawan in plain clothes was deputed with the said Ajeet Singh SC No. 45/10 Page 3/23 and were sent in a maruti car with the instructions to give signal after the deal and the said SI and remaining police officials went along with them in another vehicle driven by Harjinder following the said maruti car and at about 7.10 p.m., one car of the make TATA Indica bearing No. DL 7CL 0023 having four persons in it came to said Nirankari Sant Samagam ground at the Jahangir Puri Road and accordingly, Ct. Pawan Singh and said brother Ajeet Singh gave the signal on which three persons were over powered whose name transpired as that of the accused in the present case and at the rear seat of the said Indica car, the kidnapped boy was found sitting who was identified by his brother Ajeet Singh and from the possession of Ajeet Singh, the said wads of the currency notes were got recovered which were sealed and seized and site plan of the place where the said kidnapped boy was recovered was prepared and the said Indica car was also seized and all the three accused pointed out the place of incident and thereafter, their disclosure statements were recorded and they were arrested in the case and thereafter, one suicide note written by the said kidnapped boy was recovered from the personal search of the accused Sunil SC No. 45/10 Page 4/23 Yadav which was seized and accused Sunil got recovered the Maruti Car No. DL 2CS 1207 from Bawana Road, Sammanpur near Govt. Senior Secondary School and the said car was identified by the said girl Rinki and thereafter, the charge sheet was filed against the accused.
4. On the basis of the said evidence and the charge sheet vide order dated 05.07.2005 of my Ld. Predecessor, the charge was framed against the accused persons u/s.363/34, 364A/34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has produced as many as 12 witnesses, relevant of which have been discussed below.
6. The statements of the accused u/s 313 Cr.PC were recorded wherein they pleaded their innocence and denied the incriminating evidence against them as false and did not prefer to lead any defence evidence.
7. I have heard Ld. APP for the state and Sh.Parmal Singh, Advocate for the accused persons and perused the record. SC No. 45/10 Page 5/23
8. PW1 Ms. Anju Kumari deposed regarding the said information given to the police and proved her statement Ex.PW1/A which has been reproduced above and she was not cross examined on behalf of the accused.
9. PW2 Ms. Rinki deposed regarding the kidnapping of the said boy named Abhay at the said date, time and place when he was pulled in a car and was taken away and she did not remember the make of the car but it was a white car and she had not seen as to how many persons were inside the car nor she saw the faces of those persons and as such, she could not identify the accused persons who were inside the car. PW2 was declared hostile by the prosecution and was cross examined on behalf of the State by the Ld. APP wherein she replied that she could not say as to whether it was 28.02.05 and she could not say as to whether it was a maruti car or not and she was confronted with her previous statement mark PW2/A which she denied to have made to the police.
10. PW3 Ajeet Singh deposed that on 28.02.05, his younger brother Abhay had gone to school in the morning and after some time, Rinki had come to their house and informed about the incident and he telephoned at number 100, police came SC No. 45/10 Page 6/23 and inquired the fact and thereafter, they went to PS S.P.Badli and that at about 11 a.m., he received some calls, three or four in number at his mobile number 9891413448 and that the caller first abused him as to why they had approached the police and thereafter, asked him to tell police that it was some misunderstanding and that his brother would reach home. He further testified that again a call was received and the caller inquired as to whether he had stated the facts to the police or not to which he replied that police has been informed that the report was due to some misunderstanding and thereafter, the caller asked him to talk with his brother and he talked with his brother Abhay who was frightened in the beginning but later on, he told him that he (the kidnapped boy) was alright and that after two hours, again a call was received at his mobile phone and a demand of Rs.5 lacs was raised but as per advise of the police, he told the caller that he did not have such a huge amount and he could settle at Rs.2 lacs and that thereafter, ransom money was settled at Rs. 2 lacs and thereafter, phone call was again received and he asked the caller as to where the money was to be handed over and the caller told him that he would tell about this in further call and SC No. 45/10 Page 7/23 that thereafter, again a call was received and he asked the caller regarding the address where he had to bring money and in response of which, some address which was noted by the police was informed and he promised the caller to bring the money.
11. PW3 further deposed that the police officials made four bundles of currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 500/ each and there were some counterfeit currency notes in the said bundles and the same were kept in a polythene cover so that the same could be visible from a distance and that police arranged a white maruti van which was being driven by one police official in plain clothes and that as he got down from the maruti van and went towards another car, parked at some distance, he saw his brother in the same and he made a signal to the police on which police made a raid and recovered his brother and that there were two persons sitting on the front seats of the said car and his brother Abhay was sitting on the rear seat of the said car of the kidnappers and that as soon as his brother was recovered, he along with his brother went to the police station in the same maruti van which was being driven by the police official and that he had SC No. 45/10 Page 8/23 not seen any of the kidnappers being arrested by the police at the spot and as such, he can not identify the persons who were sitting on the front seat of the car.
12. PW3 was declared hostile by the prosecution and was cross examined on behalf of the State by Ld. APP wherein he admitted that police had recorded his statement but he had not received the calls at 4.28 p.m., 5.10 p.m. and 5.30 p.m. on his mobile phone. He admitted that police officials made the currency wads by affixing the genuine notes of Rs.500/ each on the top and bottom of the wad and in between they had kidnapped the currency notes having white sheet on one side. He denied the suggestion that in between, currency notes were simple plain papers. He replied that police had advised him to give a signal to him on seeing his brother by raising his hand on his head. He denied the suggestion that the said Indica car came at the spot at 6 p.m., after they had reached the said spot and he volunteered that infact one car was already parked at the spot when they reached there and it was noon time. He denied the suggestion that when he tried to give bundles of currency notes to three persons sitting in the car, the police at once came there and apprehended all the SC No. 45/10 Page 9/23 accused persons and his brother was got released at that time. He denied the suggestion that accused Satish and Sunil were sitting on the rear seat with his brother in between them and accused Ravinder Singh was sitting on the driver seat. He replied that he could not identify accused persons present in the court as the same persons who were apprehended at the spot. He admitted that the said currency notes were handed over to the police at the spot. He did not know as to whether the said currency notes were sealed with the seal of DNS by the police or not. He admitted his signatures at point A on documents Ex.PW 3/A to Ex.PW 3/K and the four currency notes wads were identified by him as Ex.P1 to P4. He further replied that his signatures were obtained by the police at the PS on the aforesaid documents. He denied the suggestion that a suicide note was recovered from the pocket of the pant of accused Sunil Yadav or that another piece of paper containing their address ( address of the witness) was also recovered from the pocket of pant of accused Sunil Yadav. He did not know as to whether the said TATA Indica car was also seized by the police in his presence but he admitted to have signed the documents Ex.PW 3/L and the SC No. 45/10 Page 10/23 recovery memo of his brother Ex.PW 3/M and he was confronted with his statement Ex.PW 3/N containing the said facts which he denied to have made before the police.
13. In his cross examination on behalf of the accused, PW3 admitted that his signatures were obtained on Ex.PW3/A to Ex.PW 3/N at the police station at one time and that some of the papers were blank while some of the papers were filled up when they were got signed by him. He replied that he could not tell which of the documents were filled up and which of the documents were blank. He admitted that he had not been told of the contents of the documents which he had signed nor he was allowed to read the same.
14. PW4 Abhay Kumar was the kidnapped boy who deposed in his examination in chief that in February 2005, he th was in 8 standard in the said school at Adarsh Nagar and on 28.2.05, at about 7.15 a.m. he left his house for his school and one Rinki was also with him at that time and when he reached the main road near ganda nala, one maruti car came from behind and one man came out of it and he pushed him inside the car from his back and there were two other persons sitting inside the car who asked him to take out his spectacles and SC No. 45/10 Page 11/23 they took him to village Libaspur and they shifted him to another car of black colour but he did not remember the make of the same and thereafter, they took him somewhere and they asked him to take off his coat, neck tie and the belt and gave him a tablet and one bottle, the contents of which he did not know and they kept on threatening him in the car and he did not note the number of the car in which he was kidnapped nor he knew as to who were those persons nor they are present in the court and he was also declared hostile by the prosecution and in his cross examination by Ld. APP on behalf of the State, he admitted his signatures on Ex.PW 3/B to Ex.PW 3/K, Ex.PW 3/M at point A and on Ex.PW 4/A to Ex.PW 4/C and he identified the documents Ex.PW 4/D written in his handwriting which was taken out from his school copy. He denied the suggestion that accused present in the court were the persons who had kidnapped him in maruti car No.DL 2CS 1207. He denied that his statement was recorded by the police. He admitted that he was asked to write a suicide note Ex.PW 3/J by the said kidnappers but he denied the suggestion that said kidnappers were the accused. He replied that those kidnappers asked him about the mobile number of SC No. 45/10 Page 12/23 his brother which he did not remember now. He admitted that said kidnappers called his brother Ajeet Singh and even allowed him (the witness) to talk to Ajeet Singh at once. He could not say if the said kidnappers parked their car at Sant Samagam, ganda nala near Nirankari colony. He denied the remaining story of his recovery in the said manner as is the case of the prosecution and he was confronted with his statement mark PW4/A which he denied to have made before the police.
15. PW4 admitted that his statement was recorded by the concerned Magistrate but he was told by the police to make such statement and then he made the statement and he identified his statement Ex.PW 4/E but he volunteered that the statement was made by him at the asking of the police. He replied that his statement given before this court is correct. He replied that he had not stated to the Magistrate that he was deposing at the instance of the police.
16. In his cross examination on behalf of the accused, PW4 admitted that he signed the exhibits at the PS at one time and that some documents were filled up by the police whereas some other were blank. He admitted that he was not allowed SC No. 45/10 Page 13/23 to read documents before signing and he admitted that he was afraid of the police so he did not tell the Magistrate that there was pressure of police and for this reason, he was making this statement before Magistrate.
17. From the said deposition of the victim side of the said four witnesses, it has become quite evident that all the said four PWs have absolved the accused completely for the offences alleged against them. Let me now see as to whether the police officials who joined the investigation and got recovered the said kidnapped boy as well as arrested the accused have brought home the guilt of the accused by their respective deposition.
18. PW5 Ct. Kamal Singh deposed that on 28.02.05, he along with SI Dhruv Narain received a call at about 7.15 a.m. and they went to J 123, Gali No.1 Kushak Road, Swarup Nagar, Delhi and met the complainant Anju who made a statement before the IO and IO made his endorsement and he took the rukka to the PS for the registration of the FIR and after getting the FIR registered, he returned to the said office and handed over the copy of FIR and rukka to the IO and thereafter, they took Rinki, a small girl to the spot from where SC No. 45/10 Page 14/23 the child was kidnapped and thereafter, they tried to search for the kidnappers. He testified that a raid party was also formed by the SHO for apprehension of the kidnappers and that one phone call was received on the mobile phone of Ajeet, the brother of the victim and Ajeet told them that kidnappers were asking for Rs. 5 lacs as ransom to release the kidnapped child and they went to Azad Pur fruit mandi and that again a call was received by Ajeet and he was asked to come at Sant Nirankari Samagam, Jahangir Puri Delhi for delivering the ransom amount and thereafter, they reached the spot where the IO gave four currency wads of Rs.50,000/ each to Ajeet to be delivered to the kidnappers and that at about 6 p.m., they reached the aforesaid place where four persons came in TATA Indica Car No. DL7CL 0023 of black colour and said Ajeet and Ct. Pawan in civil clothes went near the said Indica car from where Ajeet made a signal and at the direction of the IO, the police officials apprehended the three kidnappers and the victim was also got released and that all the three accused present in the court were apprehended in his presence there who were taken to Police Post, Bye Pass, Karnal Road where the IO prepared the documents and the SC No. 45/10 Page 15/23 accused were searched by the IO but he did not remember what other documents were prepared by the IO.
19. PW7 Ct. Ravinder Singh did not appear for his cross examination despite direction of My Ld.Predecessor vide order dt.24.07.09 u/s.311 Cr.P.C and as such, his examination in chief is not being read in the evidence.
20. PW8 Ct. Pawan Kumar also deposed the facts of the day 28.02.05 with regard to the raid party, handing over of the currency notes with the difference that he deposed that it was Ajeet Singh who had brought a car of the make Maruti 800 in which he along with PW Ajeet Singh went to the said place at Nirankari Sant Samagam, Jahangir Puri road and the other members of the raid party followed them in other vehicles. After the apprehension of the accused as kidnappers and recovery of the kidnapped boy named Abhay, he testified that one suicide note was recovered from the right side pocket of accused Sunil Yadav in the handwriting of victim Abhay which is Ex.PW 3 /J which was got written by PW Abhay Singh under pressure by the accused as told by him and besides the suicide note, one paper containing the details of the address and telephone number was recovered which is Ex.PW 3/L and SC No. 45/10 Page 16/23 the suicide note and the said paper were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW 4/H and thereafter, accused were arrested who made their disclosure statements and memo of recovery of the kidnapped child is Ex.PW 3/M and thereafter, accused pointed out the place from where the child was kidnapped vide memos Ex.PW 8/A to C and the TATA India car bearing No. DL7 CL 0023 was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW 3/L and the bundle notes having two currency notes in each wad were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW 3/A which were produced by PW Ajeet Singh and two sheets of written paper were taken out from the copy book of Abhay Singh for sample writing vide memo Ex.PW3/J and the four wads were handed over to PW Ajeet Singh vide handing over memo Ex.PW 3/K when they had started from the PS and he identified the four wads with two currency notes on the top and bottom of each as Ex.P1 to Ex.P4.
21. PW11 Ct. Harjinder Singh deposed that on 28.02.05, he joined the investigation with the said police officials and SI Dhruv Narain and three accused present in the court were arrested by the IO in this case and their arrest memos and personal search memos were prepared and the accused SC No. 45/10 Page 17/23 made their disclosure statements and thereafter, accused Sunil Yadav got recovered one maruti car bearing registration No. DL2 CS 1207 from the place near Govt. Sr. Secondary School, Samaypur which was taken into possession in his presence by the IO.
22. Similarly, PW12 SI Dhruv Narain being the IO deposed regarding the said facts as deposed by PW5, PW8 and PW11 and he further deposed that he checked the call details of the mobile phones from which the accused persons were talking with Ajeet Singh and transcription prepared by him is Ex.PW 12/D and he got recorded the statement of the kidnapped boy Abhay Singh u/s.164 Cr.P.C. and he identified the said wads as Ex.P1 to P4 and car No.0023 as Ex.C1 and car No.1207 as Ex.C6 and Ex.C7.
23. The cross examination of PW5, PW8, PW11 and PW12 is full of such glaring contradictions that it is difficult to reconcile the same and the said examination in chief of the said four police officials have already been demolished by PW2 Rinki, PW3 Ajeet Singh and PW4 the kidnapped boy Abhay Singh as discussed above. The inter se contradictions in their respective cross examinations can be demonstrated SC No. 45/10 Page 18/23 as below.
24. As per PW5, they reached the said spot where the accused were apprehended at about 6 p.m. and they returned to the PS at 8.30 p.m. As per PW8, the said TATA Indica car of black colour wherein the accused along with the kidnapped boy were there has come at the said spot at 6 p.m. but in his cross examination, he answered that he joined the investigation at 6 p.m. whereas his claim is that he was initially the member of the raid party from the PS itself. For PW11, he joined the investigation around 6/7 p.m. and yet for PW12, they reached at Nirankari Sant Samagam at about 5 p.m. and they returned back to the PS at about 11.30 p.m. or 12 midnight.
25. For PW5, they searched for the accused persons in private car but he did not remember its number but it was of make Maruti 800 and at that time, PW Ajeet was also with them and that they were four police officials with Ajeet riding in the said car and those police officials were himself, Ct. Pawan, Ct. Harinder and SI Dhruv Narain and it was the IO who arranged the said car. For PW8 the said car of the brand Maruti 800 was arranged by PW Ajeet Singh and he along SC No. 45/10 Page 19/23 with Ajeet Singh were the persons in the said car and other members of the raid party followed them in other vehicles and that they went to the place of occurrence in 2/3 private cars, one was of the make TATA Indica, one was of the Maruti 800 and he did not know the make of the third vehicle but the third vehicle could accommodate 4/5 persons and all the three accused persons were seated in third vehicle and the members of the raid party were sitting in the other two vehicles and all the accused were made to sit in one vehicle and they were in custody of three policemen including him but he did not remember the name of other police officials due to lapse of time and all the three vehicles but again said two private cars were hired by SI Dhruv Narain and third Indica car belonged to one of the accused and that all the police officials who were members of the raid party were in different vehicles at the time when accused Sunil was taken for the recovery of car. For PW11, only accused Sunil and IO the said SI and Ct. Ravinder went to the place where accused Sunil got recovered the said car and he along with other police staff remained present in the vehicle as remaining two accused persons were in their custody. However, PW12 admitted that SC No. 45/10 Page 20/23 at the time of recovery of kidnapped child, he was not there in car No.1207 and that he was in the official vehicle and the said constables who had accompanied them were on their two wheelar scooters but he could not tell the registration number of the said govt. vehicle and the scooters and that in the said govt. vehicle, he, Ct. Kamal, Ct. Harjinder and Ct. Surender were travelling whereas the said brother Ajeet and Ct. Pawan were in a separate vehicle which was arranged by the said constable.
26. For PW 5, during the entire proceedings, only Ajeet was with them from the family of the victim and no other family member had joined the proceedings. Similar is the stand of PW8 and PW12 also who categorically denied that father of the kidnapped boy was not present in the entire proceedings and none from the public person was joined since the proceedings were conducted at night hours though Mukarba chowk was a thorough fare and people were available in the night hours. But PW11 has another story to tell about the said fact that at the time of recovery of kidnapped boy, 1/2 public persons gathered there but he did not remember their names and that the father of the boy who was kidnapped was also SC No. 45/10 Page 21/23 present with them.
27. For PW 8 Ct. Pawan Kumar, the writing work done by the IO at Mukarba Chowk took about one hour but for PW12 the IO, it took around two and a half or three hours in conducting the entire proceedings at PP Mukarba chowk. For PW8, the raiding party was not visible from the spot from where the kidnapped boy was recovered and that the police party was about 50 yards away from the spot whereas for PW12, the place where the child was recovered and the position of the raid party may be at a distance of 710 steps.
28. Said contradictions and similar such inconsistencies go to create a reasonable doubt as to whether the accused were apprehended and the child was recovered in the manner and from the place as alleged by the said four police official witnesses.
29. Non joining of an independent public witness despite their admitted availability is yet another dent in the story of the prosecution. IO has specifically admitted in his cross examination that he did not verify the ownership of mobile phone recovered from the accused persons nor the call details SC No. 45/10 Page 22/23 of the mobile phones, the transcription of which is Ex.PW 12/D have been proved at all by calling the record from the appropriate source.
30. From the said discussion and in view of the hostility of the PW3 and PW4 and in view of the said other infirmities in the deposition of police official witnesses, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and thereby making the accused entitled to the benefit of doubt and accordingly, accused are acquitted of the charges u/s. 363/364 A/34 IPC. Their PBs and SBs hereby discharged and file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the Open Court on (RAKESH TEWARI)
on 22.12.2012 ASJ06(OUTER)
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
SC No. 45/10 Page 23/23