Delhi District Court
State vs 1. Raj Kumar S/O Babu Lal R/O 363, on 17 August, 2007
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. NAROTTAM KAUSHAL: ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE : ROHINI COURTS : DELHI.
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 30-9-2004.
DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT RESERVED: 30.07.2007.
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 10.08.2007.
STATE VS 1. Raj Kumar S/o Babu Lal R/o 363,
C-Block, Sector-9, Vijay
Nagar, Ghaziabad, U.P.
2. Chandra Sekhar s/o. Raja Ram R/o
A/61 Block, Sector-9, Vijay Nagar,
Ghaziabad, U.P.
S.C. NO.407/06
FIR NO.527/04
PS-UTTAM NAGAR
U/S. 363/341/343/328/506/34 IPC.
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Raj Kumar and Chandra Sekhar were chargesheeted by PS - Uttam Nagar for offence punishable under section 363/343/341/328/506 r/w 34 IPC.
One Keshav Kumar Gupta had appeared in the Police Station on 30.6.2004 and got recorded his statement that he had come to Delhi 2 from Ghaziabad on 27.6.2004 alongwith his family to attend a marriage. His son Mohit Gupta aged about 8 years went missing in the marriage. He had lodged the report to this effect on 28.6.2004 at PP- East Uttam Nagar, giving the description of the child. He now suspected that his son Mohit had been abducted by Chandra Sekhar S/o Raja Rama, because said Chandra Sekhar was also missing since the same day. He was present at the marriage without an invitation. On the complaint abovesaid FIR u/s. 363 IPC was registered, during investigation child was recovered on 30.6.2004 from the custody of accused Raj Kumar. On statement of the victim child, it was revealed that he had been enticed away by accused Raj Kumar alongwith his co- accused Chandra Sekhar. The child was put to sleep by offering him some sour water. Statement of the child was recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. Accused Chandra Sekhar was also arrested. Offence under section 341/343/328/506 r/w 34 IPC were added. Child was handed over to his guardians. Finding sufficient material against both the accused persons, challan was filed against them for offences punishable under section 363/341/343/328/506 r/w. 34 IPC. 3
2. After complying with the provisions of section 207 Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the court of Sessions, which in turn was assigned to the predecessor of this court.
3. Vide order dated 27.10.2004 my predecessor framed charges against both the accused persons for offence punishable under section 363/341/343/328/506 r/w 34 IPC.
During the course of trial on an application moved by the prosecution, under section 216 Cr.P.C., charge was amended vide order 11.12.2006 to include the offence punishable under section 364A IPC.
4. Prosecution in support of its evidence examined ten (10) witnesses. Prosecution evidence was closed by the statement of learned APP for the State. Victim child, Mohit, has been examined as (PW1). He has proved his kidnapping by both the accused persons and also recovery from their custody. Complainant Keshav Kumar (PW2) has proved his complaint as well as the recovery of the child. He has also deposed that accused Chandra Sekhar had indicated demand of Rs.2 lacs for release of the child. Pushpa (PW4) is the mother of the victim child. She has also proved missing of the child and presence of accused Chandra 4 Sekhar at the venue of marriage without invitation. Hemender (PW5) has also proved the presence of accused Chandra Sekhar at the time of marriage. Sh. Anand Swaroop Aggarwal, learned MM (PW8) has proved the statement of child Mohit recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. Dr. Bhatia (PW6) has proved the MLC of victim and the accused persons. Remaining witnesses are police officials, who have proved their role at various stages of investigation.
5. Incriminating evidence that had come up against the accused persons was put to them, on 22.3.2007. It was stated that the evidence was incorrect and that they had been falsely implicated because of monetary transaction between the complainant and them. A supplementary statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 10.8.2007, wherein they denied having demanded ransom of Rs.2 lacs or a Maruti Car for release of the child from the custody.
6. Sh. Sanjay Soni, learned APP for the State has submitted that the prosecution case is fully established from the statement of Keshav Gupta (PW2) and Mohit (PW1). The kidnapping of the child Mohit by the accused persons, his recovery from the custody of Raj Kumar, 5 suspicious presence of accused Raj Kumar in the marriage ceremony and demand of ransom by accused Chandra Sekhar are established and corroborated in the testimony of these two witnesses. Pushpa (PW4) and Hemender (PW5) also support the prosecution on material aspects. All the official witnesses have proved various stages of investigation and no contradictions or descripency in the evidence have been pointed out.
7. Sh. Rajesh Dhankar and Sh. S.D. Kamal learned defence counsels have submitted that there is no evidence as regards the charge under section 328 IPC. No empty bottle of alleged sour drink was seized. PW2 has deposed that the child was recovered on 1.6.2004 and the demand was made on 29.6.2004, whereas the alleged kidnapping was carried out on 28.6.2004. FIR was recorded subsequent to the recovery of the child. HC Devender Singh (PW9) has deposed about joining investigation on 23.6.2004, whereas the report was made on 28.6.2004. Keshav Kumar Gupta (PW2) has deposed that 8 police officials and his brother in law Pappu were present at the time of recovery of the child, whereas Pappu has not been examined and, it is not the case of the prosecution that 8 police officials were present. It is, therefore, submitted by the learned 6 defence counsels that the prosecution suffers from major irregularities and contradictions. The investigation is biased and improper. There are gaping holes in the prosecution story, to which there is no explanation.
8. I have heard Sh. Sanjay Soni learned APP for the State and Sh. S.D. Kamal and Sh. Rajesh Dhankar learned defence counsels. I have gone through the evidence on record and the documents relied upon by the prosecution.
9. Star prosecution witness is of course, the victim child Mohit (PW1). This witness was examined without oath. The predecessor of this court had satisfied itself that the witness due to his tender age could not have been administered oath. This witness has deposed that he was going to the house of one Shama Didi when he was caught hold of by the accused persons and he was forcibly taken away in a vehicle. He was threatened to keep quiet, failing which he would be killed. They also made him drink some sour and bitter water and kept him alongwith them for four days. He identified both the accused persons by their names. On being cross examined, he threw more light on the occurrence by deposing that both the accused persons had met him in the marriage, for which he had came to Delhi from his village. They 7 were present in the marriage function. They were on visiting terms to his house. On the day of occurrence accused Raj Kumar had pressed his mouth.
On the basis of testimony of the child, it is established that he was forcibly taken away by both the accused persons and detained for four days, thus fulfilling the ingredients of offence punishable under section 343 IPC.
10.Keshav Kumar (PW2) is the father of victim Mohit. He has proved the age of the child to be eight years and also the missing report, he had lodged to the police. He also identified both the accused persons to be his neighbours. He has deposed that his child was recovered from the custody of Raj Kumar and accused Chander Sekhar had also reached the spot at that time. He also deposed that during the period when the child was being searched on 29.6.2004 during the midnight, accused Chander Sekhar had demanded Rs. 2 lacs for the release of the child. During cross examination he state that both the accused persons had overdrawn from committee or had taken loan with his help. From the testimony of this witness it is established that his 8 year old son had gone missing and was recovered from the custody of accused Raj 8 Kumar. Accused Chander Sekhar had indicated demand of Rs.2 lacs as ransom.
11. Mother of the victim child Smt. Pushpa (PW4) has also deposed that her son had gone missing and the Chander Sekhar was present in the marriage ceremonies and had also joined them in search of the child. During cross examination she has deposed that accused Chander Sekhar had stated that the child was in the custody of a gang and his release could be arranged by paying Rs.2 lacs and a Maruti Car.
Hemender (PW5) is another relation of the complainant. He has supported their testimony indicating the presence of the accused Chander Sekhar in the marriage, for which they had all come to Delhi. He has also deposed about missing of the child Mohit.
On the testimony of all the four public witnesses noticed above, it is apparent that child Mohit aged about 8 years went missing and had been forcibly taken away by both the accused persons during the marriage ceremony. Both the accused persons had also attended the said marriage without any invitation. During the search of the child, accused Chander Sekhar had raised a demand of Rs.2 lacs and a Maruti Car to procure the release of the child. Child was eventually recovered from the custody of accused Raj Kumar. Though it has been deposed by the child 9 that he was made to consume some sour and bitter drink, but, there of course, is not other supporting evidence to this deposition. Mohit (PW1) has also deposed that he was threatened with life, to remain quiet.
12. HC Devender (PW9) and ASI Arjun Singh (PW10) are witness to the recovery of child Mohit from the custody of accused Raj Kumar. It is deposed by both of them that on a secret information they reached village-Burari and found the child in the custody of accused Raj Kumar. At the instance of accused Raj Kumar, Chander Sekhar had also been apprehended. They have proved the recovery memo Ex.PW2/C. ASI Ramesh Chander (PW3) has proved recording of FIR. Ct. Virender (PW7) has proved DD No.18 regarding the child having been reported missing. Sh. Anand Swaroop Aggarwal (PW7) learned MM has proved the statement u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. of victim child Mohit.
13.On the basis of evidence as discussed above prosecution has successfully established that Mohit (PW1) aged about 8 years was kidnapped by both the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention. They had also demanded a ransom for his release. The victim Mohit had also been threatened of his life. Charge u/s. 364A 10 IPC is, therefore, established. Since it is also established that child was recovered four days after his kidnapping, charge. 343 IPC also established against both of them. Since the offence punishable under section 343 IPC is a graver form of offence punishable under section 341 IPC, no separate conviction under section 341 IPC is necessary to be recorded. It is also established that the child was threatened to be killed by the accused persons, therefore, offence under section 506 (II) read with 34 IPC is also established. As regards the charge under section 328 IPC there is no supporting or corroborating evidence, therefore, the prosecution has not successfully established the same beyond reasonable doubt. I, therefore, hold that both the accused persons Raj Kumar and Chander Sekhar have committed offences punishable u/s. 364A read with 34 IPC, 343 read with 34 IPC & 506 (II) read with 34 IPC. Both the accused persons, are accordingly convicted for the aforesaid offences.
Announced in the open Court (NAROTTAM KAUSHAL) today i.e. 10.08.2007. ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE ROHINI COURTS:DELHI.
11IN THE COURT OF SH. NAROTTAM KAUSHAL: ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE : ROHINI COURTS : DELHI.
STATE VS 1. Raj Kumar S/o Babu Lal R/o 363,
C-Block, Sector-9, Vijay
Nagar, Ghaziabad, U.P.
2. Chandra Sekhar s/o. Raja Ram R/o
A/61 Block, Sector-9, Vijay Nagar,
Ghaziabad, U.P.
S.C. NO.407/06
FIR NO.527/04
PS-UTTAM NAGAR
U/S. 363/341/343/328/506/34 IPC.
ORDER ON SENTENCE.
1. Vide a separate judgment dated 10.8.2007 both the convicts have been held guilty for offences punishable under section 364 A read with 34 IPC, 343 r/w 34 IPC and 506 (II) r/w 34 IPC. Sh. S.D. Kamal learned counsel representing convict Raj Kumar has prayed for a lenient sentence on the grounds that Convict has two minor daughters and a wife, solely dependent upon him. There is no other family member to take care of them all.
Convict Chander Sekhar has submitted that he is the sole bread 12 earner of the family and has old parents dependent upon him and also a younger brother, who is a student. It is prayed by both the convicts that they may be let off with the imprisonment already undergone.
Learned APP for the State has strongly opposed the prayer of sentencing for the period already undergone. It is submitted that convicts had kidnapped an eight year old child and demanded ransom for his release. Stringent sentence has been prayed for.
2. I have heard the learned counsels. Offence punishable under sections 364 A IPC warrants a minimum sentence of life imprisonment with fine. The fact that convicts did not actually cause any harm to the child makes them entitled for the minimum sentence. There are no circumstances to sentence them with death. I, therefore, direct that both the convicts shall undergo imprisonment for life for the offences punishable under section 364 A IPC. They shall also be liable to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each, in default of payment of fine they shall undergo SI for a period of six months.
3. As regards the sentence for offence punishable under section 343 IPC, both the convicts shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year.
13As regards sentence for offences punishable under section 506(II) IPC; looking at the age of the victim, I am of the opinion, that the convict do not deserve any lenient approach. They are, therefore, directed to undergo RI for a period of five years.
All the sentences shall run concurrently. Convict shall also be entitled to benefit of section 428 Cr.P.C. Copy of judgment and order on sentence be provided to the accused persons free of costs. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court (NAROTTAM KAUSHAL) today i.e. 17.08.2007. ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE ROHINI COURTS:DELHI 14 FIR NO.527/04.
PS-UTTAM NAGAR.
17.8.2007.
Present: APP for the State.
Both convicts in JC.
Vide a separate order on sentence, convicts have been sentenced as under
Offence punishable under sections 364 A IPC warrants a minimum sentence of life imprisonment with fine. The fact that convicts did not actually cause any harm to the child makes them entitled for the minimum sentence. There are no circumstances to sentence them with death.
I, therefore, direct that both the convicts shall undergo imprisonment for life for the offences punishable under section 364 A IPC. They shall also be liable to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each, in default of payment of fine they shall undergo SI for a period of six months. As regards the sentence for offence punishable under section 343 IPC, both the convicts shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year.
As regards sentence for offences punishable under section 506(II) IPC; looking at the age of the victim, I am of the opinion, that the convict do not deserve any lenient approach. They are, therefore, directed to undergo RI for a period of five years. All the sentences shall run concurrently. Convict shall also be entitled to benefit of section 428 Cr.P.C.
(NAROTTAM KAUSHAL) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE.
ROHINI COURTS:DELHI.15