Delhi District Court
State vs 1) Aleem Khan @ Karan Singh on 27 September, 2012
:1:
In the Court of Ms. Kaveri Baweja
Additional Sessions JudgeFTC (Central)
Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi.
Sessions Case No. : 19/08
State versus 1) Aleem Khan @ Karan Singh
S/o Sh. NoorUllah Khan
R/o 268/29, Kandah Tikait Ganj
PS Bazar Khala District
Lucknow
Uttar Pradesh (Convicted)
2) Sanjay Gupta @ Ashok Singh
@ Sooraj
S/o Sh. Murli Manohar Gupta
R/o H. No. 57, Old Badshah
Nagar
PS Mahanagar, Lucknow, UP
(Acquitted)
3) Arther Kokar @ Ranu
S/o Sh. P. L. Kokar
R/o 10, Makbara PS Hazrat
Ganj
Lucknow, UP (Acquitted)
4) Krishan Shankar Bakde
S/o Sh. Shankar Bakde
R/o Kakde Ki Chaal PS
Nalpada
District Thane, Mumbai
(Convicted)
:2:
5) Sarvesh Kumar Prajapati
S/o Sh. Barati Lal Prajapati
R/o 256343 Khajua Courha PS
Badar Khala, District
Lucknow
Uttar Pradesh (Acquitted)
6) Manish Valisky @ Babboo
S/o SH. Samson Valeski
R/o 403/217, Chaupatia Colony
PS Shahadatganj District
Lucknow
Uttar Pradesh (Acquitted)
7) Laeeq @ Vinod Singh
S/o Sh. Siddiqui
R/o Makkaganj PS Hassanganj
Lucknow, UP
Permanent Address: Village
Padri
PS Kursi District Barabanki,
UP
(Acquitted)
8) Pritam Singh Bhati @ Preet
S/o Sh. Krishan Lal Singh
R/o 27/5, Punjabi Bagh Ext.
Delhi
Permanent Address: Village
Aloda
Jagir, PS Dhankaur,
:3:
Sikandrabad
Uttar Pradesh (Acquitted)
9) Sunil Kumar
S/o Sh. Jugal Raj Sharma
R/o 657, Double Storey,
New Rajinder Nagar, Delhi
(Acquitted)
10) Dushyant Sharma
S/o Sh. Jugal Raj Sharma
R/o 367, Double Storey,
New Rajinder Nagar, Delhi
(Acquitted)
11) Rakesh Saraha
S/o Sh. Raghbir Singh
Vill. & PO Busana District
Sonepat
Haryana (Acquitted)
12) Virender Pant @ Chottu
S/o Sh. Salig Ram Pant
R/o 13/44, SDA Hauz Khas
(Since Deceased)
13) Sanjay Khanna @ Chanki
S/o Sh. Jagdish Chand
R/o C0453, SDA Haus Khas
(Since Deceased)
14) Sunil Nathani
S/o Sh. B. N. Nathani
:4:
R/o H. No. 510, Sector 15A
Faridabad, Haryana
(Since Deceased)
Case arising out of:
FIR No. : 303/2000
Police Station : DBG Road
Under Section : 364A/450/458/397/325/120B/34 IPC
JUDGMENT
Case of the Prosecution: In the present case, Aleem Khan and Krishna Shankar are facing trial for having committed offence punishable under Section 450/458/120B/34 IPC. Besides this Accused Aleem Khan, Krishna Shankar, Sanjay Gupta, Arther Kokar, Sarvesh Kumar Prajapati, Manish Valisky, Pritam Singh Bhati, Sunil Kumar, Dushyant Sharma, Rakesh Saroha and Laeeq are also facing trial for offence punishable under Section 120B IPC for having entered into criminal conspiracy to kidnap one M. C. Mahajan for ransom. It is further alleged that all the aforesaid Accused in furtherance of their common intention kidnapped M. C. Mahajan from his house on 23.11.2000 and caused hurt to him during period of his detention and demanded Rs. 2 crores and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 364A/34 IPC. :5:
The brief facts of the case as borne out from the record are that on 23.11.2000 one M. C. Mahajan was kidnapped from his house and a case under Section 365 IPC was registered at the instance of Mrs. Kiran Mahajan wife of M. C. Mahajan. On 29.11.2000 the kidnappers demanded Rs. 2 crores from Smt. Kiran Mahajan for releasing M. C. Mahajan. The conversation was recorded by the police. On 02.12.2000again Rs. 2 crores were demanded from Smt. Kiran Mahajan and she was threatened if ransom was not paid M. C. Mahajan would be killed. On 04.12.2000 the car of M. C. Mahajan in which he was kidnapped was recovered abandoned. On 05.12.2000 again Rs. 2 crores were demanded and conversation was recorded by the police. On 14.12.2000 M. C. Mahajan was released by the kidnappers in injured condition. He was got medically examined.
On 12.02.2001 Accused Aleem Khan @ Karan Singh, Sanjay Gupta, Arther Kokar @ Ranu, Krishan Shanker Bakde, Sarvesh Kumar Prajapati, Manish Vellisky @ Dabbu and Laeeq @ Vinod Singh were arrested at PS Ali Ganj, Lucknow. All the aforesaid Accused persons made disclosure statements and admitted that they had kidnapped M. C. :6: Mahajan and had demanded ransom of two crores. The investigation was taken over by SI Lalit Mohan who got all the Accused persons above named transferred to Delhi.
On 02.03.2001 Accused Aleem Khan, Arther Koker, Sanjay Gupta and Sarvesh Prajapati were identified in TIP by M. C. Mahajan and other three Accused persons could not be put for TIP because of paucity of time. The TIP of remaining three Accused persons was fixed for 05.03.2001, whereas police custody remand of other four Accused persons was obtained. On 04.03.2001 Accused Aleem Khan made a disclosure statement and disclosed that after kidnapping M. C. Mahajan, he was kept in the house at Delhi and in the house of Dr. Preet Singh Bhatti at his house in Sikandrabad and also in village Alada Jagir. A similar disclosure statement was made by Accused Sarvesh Kumar Prajapati, Sanjay Gupta @ Ashok Singh. On same day, Accused Aleem Khan pointed out the house from where M. C. Mahajan was kidnapped.
On 05.03.2001 Accused Manish Valisky, Laeeq and Krishna Shankar Bakde refused to participate in TIP.
:7:
On 05.03.2001 Accused Aleem Khan led the police party to the house of coAccused Preet Singh situated in Hira Colony, Sikanderabad and to the house of Krishan Lal Singh in village Aloda Jagir. In the house of Aloda Jagir dried blood and adhesive plaster was recovered which was used for sealing the mouth of M. C. Mahajan. The dried blood, control earth and adhesive plaster were got photographed. On same day Dr. Preetam Singh Bhatti was arrested who while in custody made a disclosure statement. On 07.03.2001 Accused Pritam Singh Bhatti refused to participate in TIP. Accused Krishan Shankar while in custody pointed out rooms built on ground floor and first floor in H. No. 695696, Double Storey, Rajinder Nagar where M. C. Mahajan was kept as a captive. At that time that house was under construction. M. C. Mahajan also reached that house and after taking a round in the house identified the house by the tiles, the main gate, the outer gate, grill and old white wash as the house where he was kept after kidnapping. He also identified Accused Krishan Shankar Bakde, Manish Valisky, Laeeq and Pritam Singh.
Accused Arther Koker, Manish Valisky and Laeeq also made :8: disclosure statements separately. Accused Krishan Shankar Bakde also pointed out the place where car of M. C. Mahajan which was used in kidnapping was abandoned. Accused Sarvesh Prajapati, Arther Koker and Sanjay Gupta also pointed out the houses at Sikandrabad and village Alada Jagir.
On 08.02.2001 one Trilok Chand informed the police that he had sold house No. 695696 at Rajinder Nagar to Smt. Renu Sharma wife of Accused Dushyant Sharma. M. C. Mahajan also identified the house at Sikandrabad and village Aloda Jagir as the houses where he was kept after kidnapping. On 09.03.2001 Accused Laeeq, Manish Valisky and Krishna Bakde also pointed out the houses at Sikandrabad and of village Alada Jagir. On 13.03.2001 Accused Sunil Kumar Sharma was arrested who while in custody made a disclosure statement and disclosed that he had participated in planning of kidnapping to recover Rs. 38,00,000/ which M. C. Mahajan owned to his brother Dushyant Sharma. He also identified the houses where M. C. Mahajan was kept after kidnapping. On 17.03.2001 Accused Sunil Kumar Sharma got recovered his own Maruti Zen car which was used for shifting M. C. :9: Mahajan.
On 18.03.2001 Accused Virender Pant, Sanjay Khanna and Sunil Nathani were killed in an encounter, whereas Accused Rakesh Saraha was arrested. M. C. Mahajan identified the three dead Accused persons also and made a statement that Sunil Nathani and Rakesh Saraha had threatened him to pay the ransom money. On 21.03.2001 Accused Dushyant Sharma was arrested who also made a disclosure statement that he with others had planned to kidnap M. C. Mahajan to recover his money.
During investigation it was found that on 23.11.2000 telephone was made to Smt. Kiran Mahajan from a mobile phone which was positioned in the area of Old Rajinder Nagar and on 29.11.2000 and other dates the threatening telephone calls were made out of which call on 10.12.2000 was made from Dubai.
Charges: After completion of investigation, challan was filed under Section 364A/450/458/397/325/120B/201/34 IPC against fourteen :10: Accused persons including three who were killed in an encounter.
Prosecution examined as many as 35 witnesses to bring home the guilt of Accused persons.
Statements of Accused: Statement of Accused was recorded under Section 313 CrPC in which they pleaded innocence and claimed false implication.
Accused Aleem Khan pleaded that he has been falsely implicated in this case and on the day of incident, he was at his home at V & PO Kankokar Distt. CSM Nagar, Sultanpur, UP. He further pleaded that as he was active in politics and had some concern with Janta Dal and social organisations, some differences were going on with the police officials at Lucknow and they had threatened him to implicate in false criminal cases. He further stated that police officials of PS Aliganj, Lucknow involved him in a false case of ganster and arrested him falsely in the said case and further falsely implicated him in the present case.
Accused Sanjay Gupta pleaded that on the day of incident i.e. :11: 23.11.2000, he was present at the marriage function of Accused Arther Koker and was not involved in the commission of alleged offence. He stated that officials of Spl. Cell brought him to Delhi from Lucknow Jail and falsely implicated him in this case. He further stated that he was shown to the victim before the TIP proceedings.
Accused Arther Koker pleaded that on 23.11.2000 he was engaged in his marriage which was solemnized at St. Joseph Cathdral Church, Hazrat Ganj, Lucknow as per Christian Rites and thereafter, on 24.11.2000 as per Hindu Rites. He stated that reception of his marriage was held on 25.11.2000 at Lucknow at his home. He further stated that after marriage, he along with his wife left for honeymoon at Nepal on 27.11.2000 where they stayed till 07/08.12.2000. He pleaded that he has been falsely implicated in present case as well as in FIR No. 20/2001 PS Aliganj, Lucknow since he was politically active in Loktantrik Congress Party at Lucknow and some rivalry was going on with the police officials at Lucknow who had threatened him to involve in false criminal cases.
Accused Krishna Shankar pleaded that he has been falsely :12: implicated and he was not present in the entire incident. He stated that he was arrested in Lucknow where the Complainant was present and he saw the Complainant for the first time in Lucknow after his arrest. He further pleaded that PS Aliganj, Lucknow involved him in false case of ganster and has been falsely implicated.
Accused Sarvesh Prajapati and Manish pleaded that they have been falsely implicated and they were not present in the entire crime. They stated that they were arrested in Lucknow where M. C. Mahajan came and meet them. They further stated that they came to the office of Spl. Cell before his TIP. They further pleaded that they do not know the Complainant and had never seen him before and they came for the first time in Lucknow where they were arrested by Lucknow Police. The PS Aliganj falsely implicated them in a ganster case and implicated in the present case thereafter.
Accused Laeeq pleaded that has been falsely implicated in the present case as well as in case FIR No. 20/2001 PS Aliganj, Lucknow in connivance of UP Police because of his enmity in collect election where he was contesting in election but later on some other person had been :13: nominated.
Accused Pritam Singh pleaded that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case by fabricating various documents and statement of witnesses.
Accused Sunil Sharma pleaded that has has been falsely implicated because the property bearing No. 695696 Double Storey, New Rajinder Nagar belongs to him his brother and M. C. Mahajan had some dispute with his brother in law and his partner Jugal Uppal who had caused financial loss to M. C. Mahajan in the business.
Accused Dushyant Sharma pleaded that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He stated that he was called to the PS where he was arrested and falsely implicated in this case. He further stated that PW1 has falsely deposed against him as he wanted to extort money from him to which he refused and M. C. Mahajan was partner of his brother in law and M. C. Mahajan falsely implicated him in this case as his brother in law and other partner Jugal Uppal had caused some financial loss to M. C. Mahajan in their partnership. :14:
Accused Rakesh Saraha pleaded that he has been falsely implicated in this case.
Four witnesses were examined in defence by Accused persons. Accused Arther Koker examined DW1 Fr. Dominic Pinto and DW2 i.e himself in his defence while Accused Sunil examined DW3 Surinder Sapra and DW4 Ramanand in his defence.
Prosecution Evidence: The first witness of the Prosecution namely victim M. C. Mahajan was examined on record as PW1. He deposed that on 23.11.2000 at about 10.1510.30 PM his wife Kiran Mahajan and daughter Komal Mahajan went for walk after taking dinner and he was alone in the house. He had asked his wife to lock the door from outside as he wanted to sleep. However, after 15 minutes somebody knocked the door of his house from outside. On peeing through the glass of the door, he found 34 people standing outside. They started banging and kicking the door which broke opened. PW1 deposed that first Accused Aleem Khan (whom he correctly identified) entered his house armed with a pistol. Thereafter 45 more persons :15: armed with pistols rushed into the house. However, PW1 stated that those 45 persons are not present among the Accused persons.
PW1 also deposed that thereafter Accused Aleem Khan called some one at his mobile phone and informed that he was captured and he should come. After 10 minutes two more persons came who were later on killed in an encounter by the police. Those two persons asked him to hand over keys of his car and those two persons asked him to hand over keys of his car. The said two persons tied his hands behind his back and also gav e him blind goggle to wear. He also deposed that his mouth was taped with plaster and those two persons threatened him to kill him if he raised alarm and they directed him to accompany them silently.
PW1 also stated that he was forced to sit in the gap between front and rear seat of his car and the two persons each sat on his both sides. He further deposed that Accused Aleem Khan also accompanied them. He further stated that he did not know who drove the car, but the car went on for five minutes and then he was shifted to another car. Since he had blind goggles, he could not see at what place he was shifted and :16: in which car. The car went on for 30/45 minutes and then it stopped after which he was taken to one room on the ground floor. In that room, his blind goggles were taken off, plaster was removed and hands were untied. 78 persons were present in the room when he opened his eyes. None of those persons are present among the Accused persons except Accused Aleem Khan. One of the said persons called his daughter on mobile phone and he was directed to inform his daughter that he would return in two days. The victim also deposed that he spoke to the police who was present in his house and he informed the police that he would return in two days. He further deposed that said two persons who had come in his house told him that they wanted Rs. 2 crores from him. He further deposed he was again made to wear blind goggles and confined in that room for four days and during that period he was beaten up. On the last day in the evening, those two persons informed him that he was to be shifted from that room in the morning. On the next day, those two persons came with a doctor whom witness was unable to identify as he deposed that during that time he was wearing blind goggles. He deposed that doctor gave him one sedative :17: injection and he became unconscious. He clarified that he said doctor had given him injection because those two persons were addressing him as a doctor. Upon regaining consciousness in the evening, he found himself in another house where Accused Aleem Khan and Krishna Shankar (correctly identified) were present to keep a watch on him. He deposed that he was kept in that house for two days on the first floor and also made to wear blind goggles during his detention in that room. After two days, doctor again gave him some injection and he became unconscious. When he regain consciousness in the evening, he found himself in another house which was in some village. In that house, he was made to wear blind goggles but he could hear voices of 7/8 people in that house. In the night he was given beatings by iron rods but he was unable to state as to who had given him beatings since there was no light and he was made to wear blind goggles.
The victim M. C. Mahajan also deposed that he remained unconscious for 56 days because of the beatings given to him and during this period he was again shifted and when he regained consciousness, he found himself in a house where he was taken in the :18: first instance. He was, however, unable to see any person as he was wearing blind goggles though he could hear voices of 34 people in that house. After 6/7/8 days, one person by the name of Sunil Lathani who died in an encounter later on came and at that time his blind goggles were removed. He further clarified that Sunil Lathani with those two persons who had come to his house at later stage. Sunil Lathani advised him to pay the money and told that those two persons were known criminals and they could kidnap his daughter also.
PW1 further deposed that on account of beatings, he sustained 16 injuries and lost considerable amount of blood. He also deposed that he sustained fracture in left palm and right toe. As he was suffering from great pain during his detention, he was ultimately released on 14.12.2000 in Khurja at about 8 PM. He deposed that four persons had accompanied him in the car upto Khurja and none of those four persons are present among the Accused persons before the court. He deposed that he was given a kurtapyjama and Rs. 300/ by those persons in Khurja and he took a bus back to Delhi and reached his house in the night intervening 14/15.12.2000. He further deposed that his statement :19: was recorded by the police and he was got medically examined at JPN Hospital. Police also called him at PS DBG Road and played a cassette containing voices of his wife and those two persons who had come late to his house on the day of occurrence and he had identified the voices of said two persons. He further deposed that demand of Rs. 2 crores was made on the telephone. He also identified his signatures on the seizure memo of cassette which is Ex. PW1/A. PW1 deposed that on 04.03.11, he identified Accused Aleem Khan who was in custody of the police. He also deposed that he identified 34 other persons out of whom he correctly identified Accused Sanjay Gupta. However, the witness wrongly identified Accused Manish as Arther. He also indicated towards Accused Sarvesh that he was also present in the office of Spl. Staff and was identified by him on 04.03.01.
PW1 also testified that on 07.03.11, he was taken to H. No. 695696, Double Storey, New Rajinder Nagar by the Spl. Staff. He deposed that new house was being constructed there and added that he was told by the police that he kept in old constructed house and not in :20: newly constructed house but tiles in bathroom were old. He stated that from the tiles affixed in the bathroom, he recognised the newly constructed house as the one where he was kept. Police prepared identification memo of the house which is Ex. PW1/B bearing his signatures at point A. He further deposed that he was shocked to learn that said house belonged to Dushyant Sharma, whom he had previous dispute over some financial transaction which was, however, amicably settled.
He further deposed that on 08.03.01, he was taken to Sikanderabad by Special Staff where he was shown house of the doctor and later on he came to know that house was of Accused Pritam Singh Bhati. He deposed that the police prepared identification memo of the house Ex. PW1/C bearing his signatures at point A. He further deposed that thereafter he was taken to village where another house was shown to him by police but he was unable to identified the said house because he was taken to that village in the night and remained unconscious thereafter. He, however, signed the identification memo of that house Ex. PW1/D bearing his signatures at point A. On 18.3.11 he was :21: further summoned by Spl. Staff to Safdarjung Mortuary where he identified three dead bodies. He deposed that he identified those bodies that of the two persons who had come late to his house and one was of Sunil Lathani.
PW1 also stated that he identified Accused Aleem Khan, Sarvesh Prajapati, Sanjay Gupta and Arther Koker in TIP proceedings vide Ex. PW1/F to PW1/J respectively. He further stated that persons identified by him had come to his house with Aleem Khan when he was kidnapped. He further admitted upon being crossexamined by the Prosecution that Accused Krishna Shankar had come at the time of his kidnapping and remained with him for keeping a watch. He further stated that his blood had fallen in the clinic of doctor in the village house. PW1 further identified the cassette containing conversation of his wife and the person who used to threaten him and identified the cassette played before the court as the same cassette which was containing conversation of his wife with one of the kidnappers.
Apart from the victim, Prosecution also examined Complainant Kiran Mahajan, wife of the victim as PW2.
:22:
PW4 Jagmohan was the contractor of parking of NDRS. He deposed that on 04.12.2000 Spl. Staff came and seized the Santro Car bearing No. DL6CG 3347 from the parking where it was lying from 1012 days. Other public witnesses examined by the Prosecution include PW14 Sri Pal Sharma who as per Prosecution was witness to the pointing out memo in respect to house of Accused Pritam Singh at Khurja, Sikanderabad, UP. Witness though identified his signatures on the pointing out memo Ex. PW9/A. However, he failed to support the case of the Prosecution and deposed that police officials who had come to the said house on 05.03.01 were not accompanied by any Accused including Accused Aleem Khan. He further stated that 34 police officials asked him to put his signatures on the blank papers.
Prosecution also examined PW16 Baljeet Singh in order to establish its case that on 08.3.01 victim M. C. Mahajan had pointed out a room on the first floor in the house of one Krishan where he was allegedly confined. However, PW16 also failed to support the case of the Prosecution.
PW17 P. K. Wadhwa was examined by the Prosecution in order :23: to establish that there was some dispute between Accused Dushyant Sharma and the victim M. C. Mahajan on account of financial transaction. The said P. K. Wadhwa who appeared in the witness box as PW17 completely turned hostile and failed to support the case of the Prosecution stating that matter has been compromised between him and Dushyant Sharma.
PW18 Virender Singh was examined by the Prosecution in order to establish its case that on 05.03.01 Accused Aleem Khan had pointed to the house of Accused Pritam Singh at village Alora Jagir as a place where victim M. C. Mahajan was confined and given beatings. However, PW18 Virender Singh also failed to support the case of the Prosecution and denied anyone accompanied Delhi Police on 05.03.01. He deposed that he pointed out the house of Accused Pritam Singh to the police and police obtained his signatures on blank papers. Thus, though he admitted his signatures at seizure memo Ex. PW18/A, he failed to support the case of the Prosecution that the house had been identified by Accused Aleem Khan. He also denied that Accused Aleem Khan led the police party and him to the house of Pritam Singh :24: where blood was also found lying.
In order to establish the injuries sustained by victim M. C. Mahajan on account of beatings given to him, Prosecution relied upon testimony of PW11 Dr. Amar Sareen who examined victim M. C. Mahajan vide prescription Ex. PW11/A and opined nature of injuries as grievous vide his opinion Ex. PW11/B. PW13 Dr. Akash Jhanjee deposed that on 15.12.2000 he examined M. C. Mahajan and found multiple injuries present on his body at the time of his medical examination. His MLC is Ex. PW13/A. Besides the above named witness, Prosecution also examined formal witness including PW2 Jaura Oraon, Duty Officer who registered present FIR which is Ex. PW2/A. He further deposed that on 06.03.2001, SI Hridya Bhushan deposited five sealed pulandas which were entered in the relevant registered at Sr. No. 1654 vide Ex. PW2/B and on 10.4.01 he sent the pulandas to FSL through HC Karan Singh and on 07.08.01 Ct. Rajbir brough the five pulandas and the result duly sealed with the seal of CFSL and deposited the same in malkhana.
PW5 HC Ranvir Singh and PW22 ASI Kishan Lal are also formal :25: witnesses being Duty Officers.
PW6 Captain Rakesh Bakshi proved the call detail record in respect of mobile phone No. 9810008482 and 9810358394.
PW8 S. K. Tyagi was examined from the office of SubRegistrar to prove that property bearing No. 695696, Double Storey, Rajinder Nagar is in the name of Neeru Sharma, Wife of Dushyant Sharma. His report in this regard is Ex. PW8/A. The witnesses who were part of the process of investigation of the present case include PW7 Ms Nisha Saxena, the then Ld. MM/Delhi who proved TIP proceedings of Accused Krishna Shankar, Laeeq, Manish Velisky and Pritam Singh, all of whom refused to participate in the TIP proceedings. PW7 also exhibited statement of victim M. C. Mahajan recorded under Section 164 CrPC as Ex. PW7/J. PW30 Chandra Bose , then then Ld. MM was examined in order to prove TIP proceedings of Accused Aleem Khan, Sanjay Gupta, Sarvesh Prajapati and Arther Koker.
PW9 SI Jai Shree deposed that on 05.03.01 he along with SI Hridya Bhushan, SI Badrish, SI Sanjay Dutt, ASI Jai Kishan and ASI :26: Sushil went to Sikanderabad, UP along with Accused Aleem Khan who led the police team to the house of Accused Pritam Singh. One public witness was also with them. Aleem Khan pointed out the room where M. C. Mahajan was kept in captivity vide pointing out memo Ex. PW9/A. PW10 HC Karan Singh exhibited the pointing out memo dated 08.03.01, as per which Accused Pritam Singh identified the room in the house at Sikanderabad where victim M. C. Mahajan was allegedly confined vide memo Ex. PW1/C. He further deposed that vide memo Ex. PW1/A, M. C. Mahajan identified the room in house of Accused Pritam Singh at village Alora Jagir where he had been detained.
PW12 ASI Rishi Pal deposed regarding pointing out memo prepared at the instance of victim M. C. Mahajan. He also deposed regarding arrest of Accused Pritam Singh, Krishna Shankar, Manish Valisky and Laeeq and their police remand.
Prosecution also relied upon deposition of PW23 SI Raja Ram Singh who deposed regarding arrest of seven Accused persons on 23.01.01 at :27: U. P. PW31 Insp. Hridya Bhushan and PW34 is Insp. Sanjay were part of investigation.
PW35 Insp. Lalit Mohan was IO of the case.
Arguments and Analysis: On the basis of aforesaid evidence led by the Prosecution, Prosecution has strongly argued that case against all the Accused stands duly proved. Reliance has been placed on the testimony of the victim M. C. Mahajan who was examined as PW1 and pointing out memo is proved by Prosecution witness, as discussed herein above.
On the other hand, Ld. Defence Counsels strongly opposed the case of the Prosecution and addressed detailed arguments in support of their contentions that all the Accused persons are innocent and falsely implicated in this case.
I have considered the rival submissions in the light of evidence on record.
The case against each of the Accused shall now be dealt with :28: individually in the light of the arguments and the evidence on record. Accused Aleem Khan: It was contended by Ld. Counsel representing Accused Aleem Khan that Prosecution has failed to prove its case that victim M. C. Mahajan was infact kidnapped by the Accused, as alleged. It was argued that two servants who were employed by the victim at the time of incident in question have not been cited as witness, though they could have been best witnesses of the incident. Further, daughter of the Complainant was not examined by the Prosecution, for reasons best known. It was further argued that victim was suspended employee of DDA and it cannot be believed that he was financially capable of giving ransom of Rs. 2 crores and apparently entire story regarding his kidnap is false.
It was further argued that victim who allegedly returned home on 14.12.2000 in injured condition did not come to the hospital or to the police but came to his house directly which cannot be said to be natural conduct of a person. Further, the Prosecution has not examined any public witness except Complainant and her husband who are stated to :29: be interested witnesses.
Ld. Counsel for Accused Aleem Khan further pointed out that as per deposition of PW1 persons who forcibly entered his house on the night of 23.11.2000 include Aleem Khan and two other persons who had been killed in an encounter. It was contended that a false case was registered against Accused as he failed to fulfill the demands of victim M. C. Mahajan.
Moreover, as per Prosecution case, M .C. Mahajan was confined in house at 695696, Double Storey, Rajinder Nagar, Delhi for the first four days after his alleged kidnapping. However, as per DW3, the said house had already been demolished on 30.10.2000 and the electric meter had been removed on that day and accordingly the said house was not in question when it was allegedly pointed out during the course of investigation on 07.3.01. Ld. Defence Counsel also pointed out that entire story as sought to be put forth by PW1 is not believable, particularly in view of his deposition that he was made to wear blind goggles and could not see any of the offender. It was further contended that recognition of Accused Aleem Khan in TIP proceedings by PW1 is :30: cannot be relied upon since as per his deposition he has seen Accused Aleem Khan on TV channels and newspapers before he was brought to Delhi.
Accused Dushyant Sharma and Sunil Sharma: Ld. Defence Counsel representing Accused Dushyant Sharma and Sunil Sharma contended that the allegations against the said Accused pertain to his role in the criminal conspiracy of kidnapping of M. C. Mahajan for ransom though the said charges have not been proved by the Prosecution. It was argued that PW1 M. C. Mahajan during his entire deposition has not deposed anywhere that Accused Dushyant Sharma and Sunil Sharma were amongst the persons who had kidnapped him. It was further contended that in his crossexamination, PW1 clearly admitted that he was taken to the house at 695696, Double Storey, Rajinder Nagar, Delhi on 07.03.01 and the police had told him that he was kept there after his kidnapping. He further admitted that "It is correct that I myself could not identify the house, if it was not pointed out to me by the police."
It was further contended that though in his examination in chief, :31: M. C. Mahajan deposed that he identified the said house with the help of the tiles which were installed inside the house, however, in his cross examination, he stated that said tiles were of white colour which are commonly available and commonly used by people. He was also confronted by his statement under Section 164 CrPC wherein it has not been mentioned that house was identified by him on the basis of tiles. Ld. Defence Counsel argued that Accused Dushyant Sharma and Sunil Sharma have been falsely implicated in this case. He also placed reliance on the deposition of DW3 that aforesaid house had been demolished on 30.10.2000. The electric meter had been removed and he had issued defective circular. It was thus contended that there is no material on record whatsoever to convict Accused Accused Sunil Sharma and Dushyant Sharma for the aforesaid charges. Accused Pritam Singh: Insofar as Accused Pritam Singh is concerned, it was contended on behalf of said Accused that evidence led by the Prosecution does not establish the allegations against said Accused. It was contended that as :32: per Prosecution case, victim M. C. Mahajan was confined in the house of Pritam Singh at Sikanderabad and at village Aloda Jagir. It has also been alleged that Accused Pritam Singh gave sedative injection to PW1. However, at the time of his deposition, PW1 failed to identify the Accused stating that since he was made to wear blind goggles, he was unable to identify the person who had administered him sedative injection.
In regard to houses at Sikanderabad and Aloda Jagir, PW1 did not identify the said houses and only stated that he had signed the identification memo Ex. PW1/C. In his crossexamination, PW1 also admitted that he identified the room in the said house only because it was pointed out to him by the police. Ld. Defence Counsel also contended that independent public witness namely PW9, PW14 and PW18 examined by the Prosecution regarding identification of the house by the victim did not support the case of the Prosecution.
It was further contended that tape/plaster allegedly recovered from the house of Accused Pritam Singh at village Aloda Jagir also does not connect the offence in question since CFSL report does not :33: connect the said tape with victim M. C. Mahajan.
Accused Krishna Shankar: Accused Krishna Shankar contended that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It was pointed out during the course of arguments that as per crossexamination of PW1 on 18.11.03, he was unable to see anyone since from the time of his kidnapping till release as he was made to wear blind goggles which were not removed. It was thus contended that deposition of PW1 to the effect that Krishna Shankar had kept a watch on him at the time of his captivity cannot be believed in the light of the aforesaid crossexamination. Accused Arther Koker: Insofar as Accused Arther Koker is concerned, it was contended by Ld. Defence Counsel that Accused has been falsely implicated in this case. Infact on the date of the incident i.e. 23.11.2000, Accused Arther Koker had got married and he has also examined two witnesses to support this plea. DW1 produced marriage register of Saint Joseph's Cathedral Church and as per entry at Sr. No. 373 of the said register, the marriage of Arther Koker was solemnized with Sunita D/o Anjani :34: Bahadur Sinha on 23.11.2000. The certificate of marriage issued on the basis of said entry by the Parish Priest Fr. Ignatious D'Souza is Ex. DW1/A. Accused Arther Koker also examined himself as DW2 and deposed that he got married on 23.11.2000. He also exhibited invitation card of his marriage and his marriage photographs. He deposed that after marriage, they went to Nepal for Honeymoon where they stayed from 28.11.2000 to 13.12.2000.
It was further contended on behalf of Accused Arther Koker that even otherwise PW1 has not identified him as one of the kidnappers. He further contended that there is no evidence to establish that he was part of any conspiracy for kidnapping for ransom and that case against him is false.
Accused Sanjay Gupta, Sarvesh Prajapati, Laeeq, Manish Velisky and Rakesh: Ld. Defence Counsel representing Accused Sanjay Gupta, Sarvesh Prajapati, Manish Velisky, Laeeq and Rakesh also argued that victim PW1 has failed to identify any of them during the course of :35: deposition and that they have been falsely implicated in this case. Analysis & Findings: I have considered the aforesaid submissions in the light of the evidence on record.
Insofar as Accused Aleem Khan is concerned, I find on going through the record, particularly deposition of PW1 that victim has correctly identified Accused Aleem Khan as the person who had entered his house armed with pistol on the night of 23.11.2000. PW1 has also deposed that at the time of his kidnapping when he was forced to sit in a car, Accused Aleem Khan had also accompanied them. Moreover, it has also been established on record that Accused Aleem Khan had been correctly identified by victim M. C. Mahajan in TIP proceedings which have been proved on record as Ex. PW30/B. I am not able to accept the contention of Defence that since PW1 admitted in his crossexamination that he had come to know in last week of January, 2001 that Accused persons have been arrested and their kidnappers were shown on TV channels and newspapers, the deposition of the witness cannot be relied upon. The record reveals that :36: when victim M. C. Mahajan deposed before the court, he correctly identified Accused Aleem Khan as one of the persons who had forcibly entered his house armed with pistol on the night of 23.11.2000 and that he was blind folded and made to sit in a car and Accused Aleem Khan also accompanied him. The mere fact that he had seen Accused of this case on TV channels and newspapers or that he was told by police officers about the arrest of Accused in this case is not sufficient, in my opinion, to discard his entire deposition made before the court on oath. Also, the mere fact that he had seen photographs of the Accused on TV or in newspapers does not imply that identification of the Accused before the court is incorrect or based on having seen the photographs of the Accused on news channels or in the newspapers. There is nothing in the entire crossexamination of PW1 which would suggest even remotely that victim M. C. Mahajan has either been tutored by Investigating Agency to identify the Accused before the court or anyone else ever told the victim as regards the specific role of Accused Aleem Khan in the entire episode. On the contrary, the victim M. C. Mahajan has categorically and specifically mentioned the role of :37: Accused Aleem Khan by deposing that he forcibly entered his house along with other persons and that he was armed with pistol and that when he was kidnapped, Accused Aleem Khan had accompanied him and the others.
Further, the contention of the Defence that PW1 admitted in his crossexamination that he remained blind folded from the time of his kidnapping till his release, but for one occasion also does not support the case of the Accused Aleem Khan, inasmuch as PW1 clearly deposed that he saw Accused Aleem Khan at the moment when he entered his house by breaking open the door and also identified him as one of the persons who had accompanied him along with other kidnappers. PW1 also identified Accused Aleem Khan as the person who had kept a watch on him along with coAccused Krishna Shankar.
It accordingly emerges from the deposition of PW1 that he had identified Accused Aleem Khan as person who had broken open the door of his house armed with weapon with an intend to cause hurt and kidnapping in furtherance of criminal conspiracy with other Accused. It has been established that from the deposition of PW1 that Accused :38: Aleem Khan was one of the persons who had kept a watch on him while he was in captivity. The injuries sustained by victim M. C. Mahajan have been proved from the testimony of PW13 who examined victim M. C. Mahajan on 15.12.2000 and recorded the following injuries upon his person vide MLC Ex. PW13/A:
i) Multiple bluish balck contusion 20 X 6 present over the top of right shoulder region and front of upper half right arm.
ii) Scab separating linear abrasion, 3 cm in length present over front of upper half right arm, 2 cm below and outer to injury No. 1.
iii) Multiple scab separating abrasions, 17 X 6 cms over outer front of upper and middle arm of right arm intermingling with few bluish black contusions in between.
iv) Bluish black contusions 3x3 cms over outer aspect of the right elbow.
v) Multiple scab separating abrasions in area of 7x2 cms over front upper half right forearm.
vi) Bluish black contusions 4x2 cms over outer front upper arm right forearm.
:39:
vii) Bluish black contusion 7x2 cms over inner aspect lower half of the right forearm.
viii) Multiple scab separating abrasion 2x1 cms over inner aspect of right wrist region with associated swelling.
ix) Swelling 7x7 cms over back of right hand.
x) Multiple bluish black contusions 14x7 cms over front of upper half left arm.
xi) Multiple scab separating abrasions 16x7 cms over outer aspect and front of upper and middle half left arm.
xii) Multiple bluish black contusions 28x10 cms over front of left forearm.
xiii) Multiple bluish black contusions 20x10 cms over back of left forearm.
xiv) Scab separating abrasion 4x1.5 cms present over outer aspect of the (further illegible)
xv) Scab separating abrasion (illegible). Half of the left forearm. xvi) Swelling over entire area of back of left hand intermixed with multiple bluish black contusion.
:40:xvii) Partially healed V shape wound present over front of proximal phalanx of left middle finger with both margins showing bluish black contusions more prominently seen on the upper margin. xviii) Scab separating abrasion 7x4 cms over back of upper half left side chest.
xix) Multiple scab separating abrasion 11x5 cms over back of upper half right side chest.
xx) Multiple criss cross pattern bluish black contusions in area of 30x17 cms over back of lower half of the chest region.
xxi) Scab separating abrasion 2x1 cms present over the back of left upper half of abdomen lying below injury No. 20.
xxii) Multiple scab separating abrasion 4x2 cms present over the outer aspect of the left lower half of the left abdomen. xxiii) Bluish black contusion 15x6 cms present over the middle half of right leg.
xxiv) Scab separating abrasion 3x1 cms present over the front of upper half right leg.
xxv) Scab separating abrasion 1.5x1.5 over front of middle half right :41: leg inner to injury No. 23.
xxvi) Swelling in area 10x10 cms over upper surface of the right foot region.
xxvii) Bluish black contusion 10x2 cms over outer front of middle half of left leg.
xxviii) Scab separating abrasion 2x0.5 cms over front of upper half left leg.
xxix) Partially healed would 1.5 cms in length over front of upper half left leg almost horizontally placed with edges joined together and margins showing bluish black contusions.
xxx) Swelling in areas over toes of left foot upper and lower surface. xxxi) Multiple scab separating linear abrasions 4x2 cms over upper inner half of left buttock region.
xxxii) Scab separating abrasion 2x1 cms over outer aspect upper half left thigh lying 12 cms below and outer to left groin fold. xxxiii) Multiple bluish black contusion 4x2 cms over back of right thigh upper half lying 20 cms above right knee fold back side.
The opinion as regards injuries sustained by victim M. C. :42: Mahajan was given by PW11 Amar Sareen vide Ex. PW11/E, as per which nature of injuries were opined to be grievous.
On going through the record, I am also unable to accept the contention of the Defence that entire story of kidnapping is false or the conduct of Complainant Kiran Mahajan and nonexamination of neighbour Mrs. Bhatia and conduct of victim that upon being released on 14.11.2000, he went directly to his house instead of going to PS or in the hospital, can be said to be a ground for disbelieving PW1. Rather, after considering his entire deposition, I am of the opinion that Prosecution has been able to prove its case against Accused Aleem Khan beyond reasonable doubt. It has been established that Accused Aleem Khan was part of criminal conspiracy which was hatched along with other persons, including the Accused who are stated to have been killed in an encounter, with a view to kidnap M. C. Mahajan for ransom. It has also been established that Accused Aleem Khan broke into the house of the Complainant on the night of 23.11.2000 after having made preparation for causing hurt and kidnapped him from his house the fact that demand for ransom of Rs. 2 crores was made stands :43: proved from the deposition of both PW1 as well as PW3. It is also pertinent to note that PW3 was not crossexamined on behalf of Accused Krishna Shankar and Aleem Khan and her deposition to the effect that she had received ransom call and the caller informed that her husband was in custody and if she wanted to see him alive, she should deposit Rs. 2 crores thus remained unrebutted and unchallenged.
In the light of the aforesaid material on record, I find that necessary ingredient under Section 364A IPC are clearly made out in the present case. The role of Accused Aleem Khan and Krishna Shankar has been specifically brought out by the evidence led by the Prosecution. It has been established that they were part of criminal conspiracy to kidnap victim M. C. Mahajan for ransom and in furtherance of said criminal conspiracy Accused Aleem Khan forcibly entered into the house of PW1 on the night of 23.11.2000 along with other conspirators. It has also been proved that Accused Krishna Shankar while in acting in furtherance of said criminal conspiracy kept a watch over the victim while he was in confinement. Accordingly, Accused Aleem Khan is hereby convicted for offence punishable under :44: Section 120B IPC r/w Section 450/458 IPC and 364A IPC.
With regard to Accused Krishna Shankar, it has been contended by Defence that though in the examination in chief, PW1 has identified Accused Krishna Shankar as the person who had kept a watch on him, however, at the same time, he deposed that he was wearing blind goggles during his detention which were taken off only on one occasion i.e. when coAccused Sunil Lathani (killed in an encounter) came to his house.
My attention was drawn to the crossexamination of PW1 conducted on behalf of State on 14.05.03 wherein the star witness of the Prosecution namely M. C. Mahajan on the one hand deposed that he cannot say if Accused Krishna Shankar is the same person who had entered his house with Accused Aleem Khan. In the same breath he deposed that it is correct that Accused Krishna Shankar had come at the time of his kidnapping and had remained with him for keeping a watch where ever he was kept after kidnapping. It was contended that in view of the said shifting stands taken by the victim PW1, his deposition cannot be said to be trustworthy.
:45:
I have considered the aforesaid submissions in the light of the testimony of PW1. However, I find that though PW1 has not deposed in clear categorical terms that Accused Krishna Shankar was also one of the persons who had tresspassed into his house on the night of 23.11.2000, yet he has clearly identified Accused Krishna Shankar as the person who had kept a watch on him during his captivity. Even though during crossexamination recorded on 14.05.03, though the witness remained doubtful if Accused Krishna Shankar is the same person who had entered his house with Accused Aleem Khan, yet he again reiterated that Accused Krishna Shankar remained with him for keeping a watch where ever he was kept after kidnapping. Thus, though PW1 M. C. Mahajan was declared hostile and was cross examined by the Prosecution, yet it is well settled law that part of the testimony of a witness which supports the case of the Prosecution can well be taken into consideration.
Thus, on going through the deposition of PW1 in its totality, I find that though offences punishable under Section 450/458 IPC cannot be said to be proved against Accused Krishna Shankar, yet from the :46: testimony of PW1, it has been clearly brought out that victim M. C. Mahajan has identified Accused Krishna Shankar as one of the persons who used to keep a watch over him in his captivity. I am unable to agree with the submissions of the Defence that since as per PW1, he was made to wear blind goggles during his detention which were taken off only on one occasion, the identification of Accused Krishna Shankar as one of the persons who kept a watch upon him cannot be believed. I am of the said opinion because in the entire crossexamination, Defence did not put even a single question to PW1 to rebut his deposition to the effect that Accused Krishna Shankar had kept a watch over him. The witness was not crossexamined to probe as to when he had seen Accused Krishna Shankar keeping a watch over him or whether on one occasion when coAccused Sunil Lathani (since expired) had come to the room where the victim was kept in captivity because his blind goggles were removed and Accused Krishna Shankar was present there at that moment or not. Hence, since the Defence has not questioned the victim M. C. Mahajan to this effect during his crossexamination and deposition of the PW1 to the extent that Accused Krishna Shankar as :47: one of the persons who had kept a watch over him in his captivity remained unrebutted, the same has to be accepted as such.
Accordingly, in the light of the above discussion, I find that though chages under Section 450/458 IPC have not been proved against Accused Krishna Shankar, Prosecution has been able to establish its case to the extent of offence punishable under Section 364A/120B IPC against Accused Krishna Shankar for which he is accordingly convicted.
Insofar as remaining Accused persons are concerned, I find that Prosecution has not able to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The role of Accused Dushyant Sharma and Sunil Sharma to the extent that they were part of the kidnapping of victim M. C. Mahajan for ransom and in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy victim was confined in a house at 695696, Double Storey, Rajinder Nagar, Delhi has not been proved by Prosecution on record. I am in agreement with the submissions of Defence that in view of the deposition of PW1 that he had identified the aforesaid house when the police had told him that he was kept there after kidnapping is sufficient to demolish the entire :48: case of the Prosecution against said Accused persons. Moreover, the victim further admitted that he himself could not have identified the room if it was not pointed out to him by the police. Defence has also led evidence to establish that on 30.10.2000, DW3 had visited the house bearing No. 695696, Double Storey, Rajinder Nagar, Delhi and found that the house was demolished and the electricity wire was removed. His report to this effect is Ex. PW3/A. Moreover, PW17 also failed to support the case of the Prosecution, as discussed above. Hence, the case of the Prosecution that the aforesaid property was used in the commission of the alleged offences has not been established on record.
Further, the case of the Prosecution that Accused Dushyant Sharma and Sunil Sharma had grudge against PW1 M. C. Mahajan has also not been established and, therefore, the motive to commit alleged offences has also not been established on record. Reliance in this regard may be placed on the crossexamination of PW1 himself who deposed that there was some dispute between him and Dushyant Sharma earlier. However, the same was amicably settled. He also admitted in his crossexamination that there was no dispute between :49: him and Accused Dushyant. The Prosecution has also not led any cogent evidence to establish the allegations against Accused Sunil that Zen car bearing No. DL6E 5960 was used in the commission of offence in question. Allegedly the car was recovered pursuant to disclosure statement of Accused Sunil and beyond that there is no admissible evidence on record to establish the case of the Prosecution that said car was used in the commission of offence. As per PW19 and PW35 no chance prints were lifted from the said car. Moreover, PW1 clearly deposed before the court that "Since I had blind goggles I could not see at what place I was shifted and in which car."
Accordingly, in the light of the above discussion, I find that the allegations against Accused Sunil Sharma and Dushyant Sharma also do not stand establish on record.
As regards Accused Pritam Singh also, I am of the opinion that Prosecution has not establish its case against the said Accused. Admittedly, Accused Pritam Singh was not identified by the star witness of the Prosecution PW1. He further failed to identify the houses of Accused Pritam Singh, both at Sikanderabad and village Aloda Jagir :50: in which he was allegedly confined. Though PW1 identified his signatures on the identification memos in respect of said houses, yet he clearly admitted in his crossexamination that he identified the room as it was pointed out by the police. The independent public witnesses namely PW14 and PW18 also failed to support the case of the Prosecution, as already discussed above.
As regards Accused Arther Koker, he had led sufficient evidence in defence to prove the fact of his marriage which was solemnized on the day of the incident i.e. 23.11.2000 by examining DW1 and DW2. It is also a matter of record that Accused Arther Koker was not identified by PW1 in the entire deposition. Infact on 14.05.03 witness wrongly identified Accused Manish as Arther.
Further, in the light of the deposition of victim M. C. Mahajan that during his entire period of captivity, he was wearing blind goggles and could not see anyone, case of the Prosecution against rest of the Accused persons also does not stand proved on record. With regard to Accused Sarvesh, on 07.10.03 PW1 clearly admitted that "It is correct that I did not know name of Accused Sarvesh and it was told to him by :51: the police. It is correct that police had told me that Sarvesh was one of the kidnappers."
Accordingly, the final analysis, in the light of the evidence on record and above discussion, Accused Aleem Khan is convicted for offence punishable under Section 120B IPC r/w Section 450/458 IPC and 364A IPC. Accused Krishna Shankar is convicted for offence punishable under Section 120B IPC r/w Section 364A IPC, though he is acquitted for offence under Section 120B r/w Section 450/458 IPC. Remaining Accused persons namely Sanjay Gupta, Arther Koker, Sarvesh Kumar Prajapati, Manish Valisky, Laeeq, Pritam Singh Bhati, Sunil Kumar, Dushyant Sharma and Rakesh Saraha are acquitted of all charges framed against them.
Let Accused Aleem Khan and Krishna Shankar be heard on the point of sentence.
Announced in the Open Court on 25.9.12 (Kaveri Baweja) Additional Sessions JudgeFTC (Central) Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi.
:52:In the Court of Ms. Kaveri Baweja Additional Sessions JudgeFTC (Central) Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi.
Sessions Case No. : 19/08
State versus 1) Aleem Khan @ Karan Singh
S/o Sh. NoorUllah Khan
R/o 268/29, Kandah Tikait Ganj
PS Bazar Khala District
Lucknow
Uttar Pradesh (Convicted)
2) Sanjay Gupta @ Ashok Singh
@ Sooraj
S/o Sh. Murli Manohar Gupta
R/o H. No. 57, Old Badshah
Nagar
PS Mahanagar, Lucknow, UP
(Acquitted)
3) Arther Kokar @ Ranu
S/o Sh. P. L. Kokar
R/o 10, Makbara PS Hazrat
Ganj
Lucknow, UP (Acquitted)
4) Krishan Shankar Bakde
S/o Sh. Shankar Bakde
R/o Kakde Ki Chaal PS
Nalpada
District Thane, Mumbai
(Convicted)
:53:
5) Sarvesh Kumar Prajapati
S/o Sh. Barati Lal Prajapati
R/o 256343 Khajua Courha PS
Badar Khala, District
Lucknow
Uttar Pradesh (Acquitted)
6) Manish Valisky @ Babboo
S/o SH. Samson Valeski
R/o 403/217, Chaupatia Colony
PS Shahadatganj District
Lucknow
Uttar Pradesh (Acquitted)
7) Laeeq @ Vinod Singh
S/o Sh. Siddiqui
R/o Makkaganj PS Hassanganj
Lucknow, UP
Permanent Address: Village
Padri
PS Kursi District Barabanki,
UP
(Acquitted)
8) Pritam Singh Bhati @ Preet
S/o Sh. Krishan Lal Singh
R/o 27/5, Punjabi Bagh Ext.
Delhi
Permanent Address: Village
Aloda
Jagir, PS Dhankaur,
:54:
Sikandrabad
Uttar Pradesh (Acquitted)
9) Sunil Kumar
S/o Sh. Jugal Raj Sharma
R/o 657, Double Storey,
New Rajinder Nagar, Delhi
(Acquitted)
10) Dushyant Sharma
S/o Sh. Jugal Raj Sharma
R/o 367, Double Storey,
New Rajinder Nagar, Delhi
(Acquitted)
11) Rakesh Saraha
S/o Sh. Raghbir Singh
Vill. & PO Busana District
Sonepat
Haryana (Acquitted)
12) Virender Pant @ Chottu
S/o Sh. Salig Ram Pant
R/o 13/44, SDA Hauz Khas
(Since Deceased)
13) Sanjay Khanna @ Chanki
S/o Sh. Jagdish Chand
R/o C0453, SDA Haus Khas
(Since Deceased)
14) Sunil Nathani
S/o Sh. B. N. Nathani
:55:
R/o H. No. 510, Sector 15A
Faridabad, Haryana
(Since Deceased)
Case arising out of:
FIR No. : 303/2000
Police Station : DBG Road
Under Section : 364A/450/458/397/325/120B/34 IPC
ORDER ON SENTENCE:
1. Vide judgment dated 25.9.12 accused Aleem Khan has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 120B IPC r/w Section 364A IPC and for offence 120B IPC r/w Section 450/458 IPC while accused Krishna Shankar has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 120B IPC r/w Section 364 A IPC.
2. I have heard the arguments of Sh. S. P. Mehta, Ld. Counsel appearing for above named convicts and submissions made on behalf of State on the point of sentence.
3. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for above named convicts that convict Krishna Shankar is rickshaw puller and residing alone in Delhi. It is stated that he has already remained in custody for 5 ½ years during investigation, enquiry and trial of this case. A prayer for lenient view is made by Ld. Counsel for above named convict keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances.
4. With regard to convict Aleem Khan, it is stated that he has already remained in custody for about 6 ½ years in this case. He is stated to having two minor children. It is further contended that there is :56: no previous involvement of the convict in any other case. Ld. Counsel for convict states that having regard to the aforesaid, lenient view may be taken against convict Aleem Khan.
5. On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of State that offence under Section 364 A IPC is punishable with death of imprisonment for life in addition to fine. It is further contended that having regard to the seriousness of offence, there is no ground for any leniency nor is it permitted in view of the aforesaid statutory provisions.
6. I have considered the arguments in the light of the evidence on record.
7. As aforesaid, the allegations against above named convicts have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The offences proved to have been committed by them are undisputedly grave in nature.
8. Having regard to the totality of facts and the relevant statutory provisions, above named convicts are sentenced as under:
i) Convict Aleem Khan is directed to undergo life imprisonment for offence punishable under Section 120B IPC r/w Section 364 A IPC, in addition to payment of fine of Rs 5000/. In default whereof, he shall undergo, Simple Imprisonment for 03 months.
ii) For offence punishable under Section 120B IPC r/w Section 450 IPC, above named convict is directed to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 07 years, in addition to payment of fine of Rs. 2500/. In default whereof, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for 01 month.
:57:
iii) For offence punishable under Section 120B IPC r/w Section 458 IPC, above named convict is directed to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 07 years, in addition to payment of fine of Rs. 2500/. In default whereof, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for 01 month.
iv) Convict Krishna Shankar is directed to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life, in addition to fine of Rs. 5000/. In default whereof, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for 03 months.
All the aforesaid sentences shall run concurrently. Convicts shall also be entitled to benefit of Section 428 CrPC, as applicable under law.
Ordered accordingly.
Copy of judgment and order of sentence be given to convicts free of cost.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court today on 27.9.12 (Kaveri Baweja) Additional Sessions JudgeFTC (Central) Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi.