Delhi District Court
State vs Parmod Kumar Rai on 21 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHIVALI SHARMA, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-03: WEST DISTRICT, THC, DELHI.
SHIVALI by
CNR No.
Digitally signed
SHIVALI
SHARMA
DLWT01-000537-2013
SC No.
SHARMA Date: 2025.01.21
15:20:23 +0530 56648-2016
State Vs. Parmod Kumar Rai & Ors
FIR No. 92/2013
U/s. 364A/120B/34 IPC
PS: Tilak Nagar
JUDGMENT
1. Sr. No. of the case : 56648/2016
2. Date of Committal to Sessions : 07.06.2013
3. Name of the complainant : Ms. Monika
Mehra
4. Date of Commission of Offence : Between
19.02.2013 and
20.02.2013
5. Name and Parentage of Accused : (i) Parmod
Kumar Rai
S/o Sh. Baleshwar
Rai
R/o Village
Saidpur Jahid,
PS Ujiarpur,
PO Rupoli,
District
Samastipur,
Bihar.
(ii) Rajesh
Kumar Mehto
S/o Sh. Babu
Chand Mehto
R/o Village
Khajepur, PS
Majuralhaque
Nagar PO
SC No. 56648-2016 State Vs. Parmod Kumar Rai Etc. FIR No. 92-2013 Page no.1/40
Rampur
Ketola, District
Siwan, Bihar.
(iii) Suresh
Kumar
Sharma S/o
Sh. Narain
Sharma R/o
Village
Saidpur Jahid,
PS Ujjiarpur,
PO Rupoli,
District
Samastipur,
Bihar.
6. Offence complained of : U/s.
364A/120B/34
IPC
7. Offence Charged : U/s. 120B
IPC and 364A
r/w 120B IPC
8. Plea of Guilt : Not guilty.
9. Final Order : Acquitted
10. Date on which Order Reserved : 08.01.2025
11.Date on which Order Announced : 21.01.2025
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. The case of the prosecution is that on 21.02.2013, a written complaint was made by Smt Monika Mehra with SHO PS Tilak Nagar (Ex.PW12/A) alleging that on 19.02.2013, her husband Ajay Kumar along with his employee had gone to SC No. 56648-2016 State Vs. Parmod Kumar Rai Etc. FIR No. 92-2013 Page no.2/40 Patna by evening train at about 5:30 PM. Employee Dharamveer was working with her husband for last about 3-4 months and had taken him for purchase of land at Bihar at low prices. Till 10:30 PM on 20.02.2013 she had spoken to her husband on his two mobile numbers, however, since the morning of 21.02.2013 both the mobile phones were switched off. In the evening of 21.02.2013 her mother-in- law received a call from her husband who asked her to recharge an amount of Rs. 200/- on mobile no. 9934979501. Her mother-in-law recharged the said amount. In the evening she told the complainant about the same and complainant called on the said number. Her husband spoke to her and asked her to give phone to one of his employee namely Rahul. Her husband informed Rahul that he and Dharamveer were kidnapped and kidnappers were demanding a sum of Rs. 25 Lacs. He also told him not to call on that number as the kidnappers were taking the said mobile phone with them. Again at about 9:30 PM she received a call on her mobile and her husband asked her to deposit Rs. 15,000/- in the bank account of her mother-in-law. Her husband also informed her that on the next morning at about 11:00 AM one person namely Shailender will come on the metro station and she should asked Rahul to take that person to his office and after speaking to him on phone give Rs. 10 Lacs to that person and he will send money to Bihar. She asked her husband when he will return back on which he stated that she should comply with the directions and only thereafter he SC No. 56648-2016 State Vs. Parmod Kumar Rai Etc. FIR No. 92-2013 Page no.3/40 will come back.
2. Complainant Monika Mehra suspected that her husband had been kidnapped for ransom and accordingly, made a complaint to the police on the basis of which the present FIR was registered u/s 364A/34 IPC on 22.02.2013.
3. During investigation, the call details records of the mobile phone of the victim were collected and his location was found at Samastipur Bihar. Police team rushed to the location. In the meanwhile a call was received on the phone of the complainant from one person namely Surender to the effect that Parmod had asked for Rs. 10 Lacs. She asked Surender to come home on which he refused and asked her to come to the Tilak Nagar metro station with money. Rahul went to the metro station with the police team where the said person Surender was apprehended who informed the police that he had come there on asking of a third person to collect money on commission. He also stated that one person by the name of Shankar who called him was in turn called by one Parmod. He was asked to collect the money and take the same to Samastipur, Bihar. Thereafter, during investigation the raiding party went to Samastipur Bihar from where victim Ajay Kumar was got released and accused Parmod Kumar Rai, Rajesh Kumar Mehto and Suresh Kumar were apprehended for kidnapping victim Ajay Kumar for ransom under conspiracy.
4. After completion of investigation accused Parmod Kumar Rai, Rajesh Kumar Mehtro and Suresh Kumar Sharma SC No. 56648-2016 State Vs. Parmod Kumar Rai Etc. FIR No. 92-2013 Page no.4/40 were charge-sheeted for the offences U/s 364A/120B/34 IPC.
CHARGE:
5. Detailed arguments on charge were heard from Ld. Defence counsel and Ld. Addl. PP for State. Vide order dated 26.11.2013 the Court charged all the accused persons for the offence of criminal conspiracy and for committing the offence of kidnapping for ransom punishable u/s 120B IPC and for committing the offence of kidnapping for ransom in pursuance of criminal conspiracy punishable u/s 364A r/w 120B IPC. They pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:
6. The prosecution led evidence and examined 14 witnesses in all to bring home the charge against the accused persons.
7. PW1 Rahul, employee of victim Ajay Mehra; PW8 Surender; the person who had come to collect money, PW9 Pushpa Arya, mother of victim Ajay; PW11 Ajay Kumar/victim, PW12 Monika Mehra/complainant/wife of victim and PW14 Dharamveer, employee of victim/victim and eye witness to the incident are prime witnesses of the prosecution case.
8. PW-12 Monika Mehra is the complainant who deposed that on 19.02.2013 her husband and his employee Dharamveer had left Delhi for Bihar by evening train at about 5:30 PM for purchase of some property. On 19.02.2013 and till 6:00 PM on 20.02.2013 she had spoken to her husband on SC No. 56648-2016 State Vs. Parmod Kumar Rai Etc. FIR No. 92-2013 Page no.5/40 mobile phone. On 21.02.2013 mobile phones of her husband were found switched off. At about 5:30 PM she received a call from her husband on her mobile phone who asked to speak to Rahul/PW-1. She handed over mobile phone to Rahul and her husband informed Rahul that he had been kidnapped. On 21.02.2013 in the evening, her mother-in-law received a call from her husband Ajay who told her to get recharge of Rs. 200/- on one mobile number and her mother complied. She made a call on said number and spoke to her husband who asked her to deposit cash amount of Rs. 15,000/- in the bank account of her mother-in-law. Her husband also informed her that kidnappers were demanding cash of Rs. 20 lacs for releasing him and on the next day one person would come to Tilak Nagar Metro Station to take cash amount of Rs. 10 Lacs. Her husband told her she should asked Rahul to take the said person to his office and hand over cash of Rs. 10 Lacs to him after speaking to Ajay (her husband). Her husband told the name of said person as Suresh. Her husband was having ATM cards of her mother-in-law and thus asked her to deposit cash of Rs. 15000/- in her account. She had lastly spoken to her husband on 21.02.2013 at about 9:30 PM.
9. In the intervening night of 21-22.02.2013, she went to PS along with her father-in-law and lodged her complaint Ex.PW12/A. On the next morning, police officials visited her house and asked her to call her husband. She called her husband and as per instructions of police asked him to SC No. 56648-2016 State Vs. Parmod Kumar Rai Etc. FIR No. 92-2013 Page no.6/40 send the person to collect the cash at about 11/12 Noon. Her husband informed her about the physical description and color of clothes of the person who would come to Tilak Nagar Metro Station to collect the money. She informed about the conversation to Rahul who went to Tilak Nagar metro station along with police officials to deliver cash of Rs.3,50,000/-. At Tilak Nagar metro station said person was apprehended and brought to PS. She remained at her house.
10. On being suggested by Ld. Addl. PP for the State she admitted that the mobile number which was asked to be recharged by her husband was 9934979501. She also stated that she had received a call from the person who had come to collect cash at Tilak Nagar Metro Station and his name was Surender or Shailender.
11. PW9 Pushpa Arya, mother of victim Ajay deposed that on 19.02.2013 her son along with his employee had gone to Bihar by train. At about 5:30 PM, she spoke to her son Ajay in the night of 19.02.2013 and till 8:30 PM on 20.02.2013. Thereafter, when she tried to call her son, his mobile phone was found switched off. On 21.02.2013, she received a phone call from her son Ajay who asked her to recharge the mobile number from which he was calling with Rs. 200/-. She got the phone recharged. Her son again called her from the said number but since she was very nervous she asked her employee to speak to her son and her son informed him that everything was not well. After about 1-2 hours that boy Rahul/PW-1 informed her that it SC No. 56648-2016 State Vs. Parmod Kumar Rai Etc. FIR No. 92-2013 Page no.7/40 seemed that Ajay had been kidnapped. On 21.02.2013, her daughter-in-law who teaches in the school came back in the evening and she informed about the telephonic conversation to her. Thereafter, Rahul informed her that Ajay had asked that an amount of Rs. 15 Lacs be deposited in her SBI account as kidnappers were demanding Rs 15- 20 Lacs. Her ATM card used to remain with her son Ajay. Thereafter, she received a telephonic call from her son who asked her to deposit all money with her into her account at once. At that time her daughter-in-law could arrange only Rs. 15,000/- which were deposited in her bank account.
12. She further deposed that there was no conversation in the night but she had received a message from her son on her phone from some other number that she should deposit Rs. 10 Lacs without fail in her account by next morning. She informed her son that she was unable to do so. Then her son informed her that a person named Surender would be sent to collect cash. Her son also gave description of Surender and informed her that he would come at Tilak Nagar Metro Station at about 12:30 PM. Rahul/PW-1 went to Tilak Nagar metro station and on meeting Surender, immediately informed her about the same. Rahul did not take money with him.
13. She was cross-examined on behalf of the State wherein she admitted that she had informed the police that on 21.02.2013 she had received a call from Ajay for recharging mobile number 9934979501 and she got the same recharged through their employee Rahul. She also SC No. 56648-2016 State Vs. Parmod Kumar Rai Etc. FIR No. 92-2013 Page no.8/40 admitted that when she informed her daughter-in-law she had called Ajay on the said number who had asked to let her talk to Rahul and Ajay informed about his kidnapping and demand of Rs. 20-25 Lacs by the kidnappers. She also admitted that Ajay had asked her to deposit Rs. 15 Lacs in her account. She also admitted that Surender i.e. person who had come to receive money i.e. Rs. 10 Lacs in cash was asked by her daughter-in-law to come to their house for receiving the money but he refused and asked them to bring money to Tilak Nagar Metro Station at 12:30 PM.
14. PW1 Rahul is an employee of the victim Ajay/PW-11 who deposed that on 19.02.2013 Ajay had gone to Patna and he was working at office of Mayur Cables. On that day and on 20.02.2013 he attended his duties at office and returned back to his house after duty hours. On 21.02.2013 when he was in his office, at about 2-2:30 PM, Ms Monika Mehra/PW-12 w/o Sh Ajay gave him a mobile number and asked him to get the same recharged for an amount Rs.200/-. Thereafter at about 5-5:30 PM, in his presence a telephonic call was received by Monika Mehra who asked him to speak on call. He spoke to Ajay Mehra/PW-11 telephonically who after making general inquiry about the work, very softly told him that he and Dharamveer had been kidnapped and the ransom amount demanded was Rs. 20-25 Lacs. Thereafter, he went home. On 22.02.2013 he reached the office at about 9:00 AM. Ms Monika Mehra gave him Rs. 15,000/- and asked him to deposit the same in the bank account Ms Pushpa, mother of Ajay at SBI SC No. 56648-2016 State Vs. Parmod Kumar Rai Etc. FIR No. 92-2013 Page no.9/40 bank. He deposited the amount and handed over the passbook (Ex.PW1/1) and pay slip (Ex.PW1/2) to the IO which were siezed vide memo Ex.PW1/3. He returned to his office. Ms Monika Mehra asked him to go to Tilak Nagar Metro Station where she stated that one person namely Surender would come to take money ie. cash of Rs.10 Lacs. Monika gave him telephone number of Surender/PW-8. He went to Tilak Nagar Metro Station with police. Surender was apprehended at Tilak Nagar Metro Station and taken to PS Tilak Nagar.
15. He was cross-examined on behalf of the State but he denied the suggestions given.
16. PW-8 Surender deposed that he is a halwai by profession. He also did the work of taking money from the labour and handing over the same to their family members at Bihar. He used to get a commission of about Rs. 1.50 per Rs. 100 that he carries to Bihar on behalf of the labour. One Shankar telephoned him in the second month of 2013 and told him that he has to get the money of accused Pramod. Shankar gave him the telephone number of Pramod. He spoke to him and Pramod told him that his mother had expired and he should bring the money to the village from a person named Rahul who will give him the money. Initially, he declined to take the money but Pramod insisted saying that he was in dire need of money. After finishing his work, he went to Tilak Nagar Metro Station at about 01-01:30 PM. Three persons came there in a vehicle and took him to PS Tilak Nagar. At the PS, police made SC No. 56648-2016 State Vs. Parmod Kumar Rai Etc. FIR No. 92-2013 Page no.10/40 enquiries from him and told him that he would have to go to Bihar. They also showed him the photograph of Accused Pramod. He informed the police that he did not know and cannot identify Pramod and had only spoken to him through Shankar. He left for Bihar in a train at about 05:00 PM. Pramod called him when he reached at Samastipur. He called Pramod in front of gate of the post office adjacent to the Court. When Pramod came there, two other persons were present with him. Police apprehended all the three persons and took them in a vehicle. He went in another vehicle to Samastipur, Govt Guest House. The three apprehended persons were also taken to Samastipur Govt Resthouse. He was not aware where the police took the said persons from there. Police took his signatures on certain papers. He identified his signatures on Mark PW- 8/A to Mark PW-8/G.
17. He was cross-examined by Ld. Additional PP for the State as he was resiling from his earlier statement. In his cross- examination, he admitted that in the enquiries made from him by the police, he had informed them that on 21.02.2013, Shankar had informed him telephonically that a person namely Pramod would call him. Pramod told him, "paise leke aane hain". He also admitted that Pramod had asked him to bring money from Rahul. However, he stated that Pramod did not mention the amount of money and merely stated that whatever money was given by Rahul should be brought by him to Bihar and he would be given his commission. He also stated that he was not aware if SC No. 56648-2016 State Vs. Parmod Kumar Rai Etc. FIR No. 92-2013 Page no.11/40 any Ajay was in Bihar nor he was aware about his abduction. Police had informed that Pramod had to be apprehended and he had told the police that he did not recognize him by face and could get him apprehended on the basis of mobile phone. He admitted that he had reached Bihar on 23.02.2014 and after reaching the agreed place, he had called Pramod there. He denied the suggestion that police had asked 4-5 passersby to join the proceedings, rather he stated that when Pramod was apprehended, all other persons started running and two other persons were apprehended by the police who were later on left. He admitted that about 18-20 police staff was present there. He denied the suggestion that police conducted search of accused Pramod at the place of apprehension and rather stated that his search was conducted at the resthouse. He also denied the suggestion that one SBI ATM card in the name of Pushpa Arya, a pan card in the name of Ajay Kumar and three ATM slips for withdrawal of money and a driving license were recovered from accused Pramod in his presence. He also stated that police had not conducted search of the accused Rajesh Mehto in his presence. He stated that although he had signed on various documents on the asking of the police but he was not aware as to what were the said documents. He showed ignorance regarding recovery of Ajay and Dharamveer from a jhuggi in village Saidpur or that they were tied with ropes at the time of their recovery. He denied being a witness to any recoveries.
SC No. 56648-2016 State Vs. Parmod Kumar Rai Etc. FIR No. 92-2013 Page no.12/40
18. He identified accused Pramod as the person to whom he had spoken on the phone and accused Rajesh Kumar Mehto and Suresh Kumar as the two persons who were accompanying accused Pramod Kumar Rai at the time of their apprehension.
19. PW-11 Ajay Kumar is the victim in the present case who was allegedly kidnapped for ransom. He deposed that he used to run the business of cable under the name and style of Mayur Vision Cable. Accused Rajesh used to work in a financial company and used to talk to him with regard to loan. In the last month of 2012 and in the year 2013, Rajesh gave him a proposal for purchasing a property at Samastipur, Bihar. On 19.02.2013, he along with one of his employees namely Dharamveer/PW-14 left Delhi for Samastipur. They reached there on 20.02.2013 and met accused Rajesh, Pramod and Suresh. All the accused persons wrongfully confined him and Dharamveer and demanded a ransom of Rs. 20-25 Lacs from him. They snatched their mobile phones and his belongings that are ATM card of his mother Pushpa, laptop make HCL, model ME, wallet containing cash of Rs. 3-4000/-, copy of his driving license and other documents and his gold ring. His laptop was broken by the accused persons. They also asked him to get recharged one of their mobile phones for Rs. 200/- by asking his family members at Delhi and demanded Rs. 10 Lacs as ransom at that time and told him to get deposited cash of Rs. 15000/- in the account of his mother so that the same could be withdrawn by them SC No. 56648-2016 State Vs. Parmod Kumar Rai Etc. FIR No. 92-2013 Page no.13/40 through ATM Card.
20. On 22.02.2013, the accused persons handed over their mobile phone to him to talk to his family members and make the demands. He made a call from that mobile phone on the mobile number of his wife Monika and asked her to call his employee Rahul. He spoke to Rahul and informed him about the incident of kidnapping. He also told Rahul that one person namely Shailender would come to Tilak Nagar Metro station at night on 22.02.2013 to collect ransom amount of Rs. 10 Lacs which was demanded by the accused persons. He also asked Rahul to deposit Rs. 15000/- in the account of his mother. Rs. 15000/- were deposited and the accused persons asked him about the PIN number of the ATM card of his mother. The accused persons had tied him and Dharambir with chord and confined them in a room by locking the same.
21. On the next day i.e. 23.02.2013, during afternoon, the police officials from Delhi came to Bihar and rescued them vide memo Ex. PW-11/A. The accused persons were also apprehended and he identified them as the kidnappers. From the possession of the accused persons, police officials recovered his mobile phone and that of Dharambir as well as all the articles that were taken by the accused persons. The chord with which they were tied was also seized vide memo Ex. PW-11/B. Thereafter, they were taken to Delhi. He narrated the entire incident to the police at PS. Slip regarding withdrawal of money from the ATM card of his mother was also recovered from the accused SC No. 56648-2016 State Vs. Parmod Kumar Rai Etc. FIR No. 92-2013 Page no.14/40 persons. IO prepared a site plan of the spot i.e. village Saidpur, Jahid, PS Ujiarpur, PO Rupoli, District Samastipur, Bihar which is Ex. PW-11/C.
22. He identified all the accused persons as the kidnappers, his laptop (Ex. P-1), mobile phone make nokia recovered from accused Suresh (Ex. P-2), two mobile phones make Nokia (Ex. P-3 and Ex. P-4), one mobile phone make Sony belonging to Dharmveer (Ex. P-5), Rs. 3500/- cash (Ex. P-
6), chords Ex. P-7 Colly, ATM card of his mother (Ex. P-
8), his PAN card (Ex. P-9), Colored photographs of his driving license (Ex. P-10), receipts (Ex. P-11 colly), one mobile phone make Nokia 1209 and the other make G-5, model no. U-969, both recovered from the possession of accused Pramod (Ex. P-12 and Ex. P-13).
23. On being put leading questions, he admitted that his laptop make HCL was recovered in burnt condition from the jhuggi of accused Pramod and the site plan of place of recovery (Ex. PW-11/D) was prepared by the IO.
24. PW-14 Dharamveer deposed that in the year 2013, he was working with M/s Mayur Vision Cable situated at Tilak Nagar. Ajay Mehra was the owner of the said company. On 19.02.2013, he along with Ajay Mehra left for Patna, Bihar in train at about 05:00 PM as Ajay Mehra had to purchase some land. They got down from the train in the morning hours on 20.02.2013. They stayed in a hotel. In the evening hours, accused Pramod, Rajesh and Suresh came to the hotel and took them to their village Saidpur, District Samastipur, Bihar. Accused persons took him and Ajay in SC No. 56648-2016 State Vs. Parmod Kumar Rai Etc. FIR No. 92-2013 Page no.15/40 one room where they were held captive. Accused persons took the mobile phone, laptop, ATM card of Ajay, ATM card of mother of Ajay and purse of Ajay and they also took his two mobile phones.
25. In the morning hours of 21.02.2013, on their asking, accused persons took them in their captivity for getting fresh. Accused persons asked Ajay to call his mother and get their phone recharged. Ajay called his mother and got their phone recharged. Accused persons further asked Ajay to call his house and ask them to deposit Rs. 15,000/- in the account of mother of Ajay. Accused persons asked the PIN No of the ATM Card of mother of Ajay and Ajay told the same to them. After the money was deposited in the account of mother of Ajay, the accused persons withdrew the amount from ATM. Wife of Ajay called on the mobile phone of accused persons and talked to Ajay and on the asking of the accused persons, Ajay told her that they had been abducted and the accused persons were demanding Rs. 20-25 Lacs as ransom. Ajay told his wife that one person will come at Tilak Nagar Metro Station and that she should ask one of his employees namely Rahul to give Rs. 10 Lacs to him. The accused persons tied him and Ajay with cotton ropes.
26. On 23.02.2013, in the afternoon hours, while accused Suresh was present in the room where they were held captive, many police officials along with accused Pramod and Rajesh came there and rescued them. At the instance of accused persons, one burnt laptop belonging to Ajay SC No. 56648-2016 State Vs. Parmod Kumar Rai Etc. FIR No. 92-2013 Page no.16/40 was recovered from the room which was kept in a plastic katta. Accused persons also got recovered his mobile phones make Nokia 1209 and G-5 (Model No. U-969). They also got recovered the ATM card of mother of Ajay, his DL and PAN card. Police took into possession the aforesaid articles. Police also took into possession the ropes with which they were bound. The mobile phone of accused persons from which Ajay was made to call at his house for ransom was also recovered by the police. Police took him, Ajay and all the three accused persons to Samastipur where the accused persons were medically examined. Police interrogated the accused persons and also made enquiries from them. Police went to the court at Samastipur and obtained order of Judge for taking the accused persons to Delhi. In the night, the accused persons were kept in the lockup of PS at Samastipur and they stayed at some other place along with police officials. On 24.02.2013, police took him, Ajay and all the three accused persons to Patna, Bihar from where they boarded the train in the evening hours and reached Delhi on 25.02.2013. Site plan of the place where they were held captive is Ex. PW- 11/C, site plan of recovery of burnt laptop is Ex. PW-11/D. Seizure memo of the cotton rope from which he was tied is Ex. PW-10/J. He identified all the accused persons.
27. PW-3 Mukesh Kumar is a witness from SBI Bank, Tilak Nagar Branch who produced the bank account statement of account no. 32124798024 in the name of Pushpa Arya as Ex. PW-3/A. SC No. 56648-2016 State Vs. Parmod Kumar Rai Etc. FIR No. 92-2013 Page no.17/40
28. PW-2 Ct. Vinod Kumar, PW-4 Ct. Praveen and PW-5 SI Aditya are the three police officials who were given watch and care duty near the house of victim Ajay by SHO after receiving a complaint regarding his abduction and registration of present FIR in the intervening night of 21- 22.02.2013. Their deposition is in consonance with each other.
29.They deposed that on 22.02.2013, they were present at the house of Ms.Monika when she received a call from one Surinder who told her that one Pramod has sent him to receive money. Monika asked him to come to her house for taking money, however, he requested the money to be delivered to him at Tilak Nagar Metro Station. Monika also told him that one boy will deliver money to him at Tilak Nagar Metro Station at 12:30 PM. In the meanwhile, employee of the victim Ajay Kumar namely Rahul came there and handed over one passbook and one deposit slip of Rs. 15000/- in the name of Pushpa Arya which were seized vide memo Ex. PW-1/3. The passbook is Ex. PW- 1/1 and deposit slip is Ex. PW-1/2.
30. PW-5 gave intimation to SHO who directed them to take immediate action. Thereafter, all three of them along with Rahul went to Tilak Nagar Metro Station where one person was standing near Metro Station. On their directions, Rahul went to him and asked him if he was Surinder and had come to take money. On confirmation by him, Rahul signalled them and they apprehended the said Surinder. Surinder disclosed that he was asked by one Shankar that SC No. 56648-2016 State Vs. Parmod Kumar Rai Etc. FIR No. 92-2013 Page no.18/40 one Pramod will call him and thereafter, Pramod had called him and told him that his money was due which will be given by one Rahul to him and he has to deliver the money at Bihar to Pramod and he will get his commission. Surender also disclosed that he used to deliver money to the parties interstate and take commission for the said purpose. He was known to Shankar who was a resident of his native village and accordingly, he agreed to carry money on behalf of Pramod. He stated that he had no knowledge about any kidnapping or that Pramod had asked him to collect the ransom amount and disclosed that he can help the police in apprehension of Pramod. They brought Surender to PS and informed SHO about all the events after which a fresh team was constituted by SHO and sent to Bihar along with Surender for appropriate action.
31. PW-6 ASI Ompal Singh is the Duty Officer who deposed that on 22.02.2013, he was handed over a rukka by the SHO for registration of FIR u/s 364A/34 IPC. He registered the FIR and handed over the investigation to SI Mohd. Haroon as per directions. He proved the FIR as Ex. PW-6/A and certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW-6/B.
32. PW-7 Pawan Singh is the Nodal Officer from Idea Cellular Ltd who produced the CAF in relation to mobile number 9891824775 in the name of Ajay Kumar Mehra which is Ex. PW-7/A. He also produced the CDR of the said mobile number for the period 01.02.2013 to SC No. 56648-2016 State Vs. Parmod Kumar Rai Etc. FIR No. 92-2013 Page no.19/40 03.04.2013 which is Ex. PW-7/B and his certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act in relation to the CDR which is Ex. PW-7/C.
33. PW-13 Sh. Ajeet Singh is the Nodal Officer from Vodafone Idea Ltd. He produced CAF of mobile number 9911180239 registered in the name of Rohit Aggarwal which is Ex. PW-13/A and certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act regarding printout of CAF is Ex. PW-13/B. He deposed that the said number was deactivated on 02.09.2016 and CDRs of the said number could not be retreived. He also deposed that mobile number 9999479611 was registered in the name of Asha and deactivated on 25.11.2014. Its CAF as well as CDR could not be retreived due to long disconnection.
34. PW- 10 HC Deep Chand deposed that on 22.02.2013, he along with IO/Inspector Surinder Sandhu, HC Jai Bhagwan and Ct. Rajender had gone for investigation of present FIR to Samastipur, Bihar. IO had received a call from SI Aditya that a person named Surender who worked with Pramod Kumar and was appointed for bringing money would reach near GPO, Samastipur on 23.02.2013. In his presence, on 23.02.2013, Surender was brought by the team comprising of Inspector Maninder, SI Manoj, SI Chanran Singh and Ct. Amarjeet to them near Samastipur Guest House. Surender was asked to stand near GPO Samastipur and directed to make a signal when any of the accused persons met him. At about 12:00 Noon-12:15 PM, accused Pramod and Rajesh Kumar Mehto came near SC No. 56648-2016 State Vs. Parmod Kumar Rai Etc. FIR No. 92-2013 Page no.20/40 Surender and started talking to him. Surender made a pre- decided signal and they apprehended Pramod and Rajesh. On search of accused Pramod, one SBI ATM card in the name of Pushpa Arya, one PAN card in the name of Ajay Kumar, three withdrawal slips and DL of Ajay Kumar were recovered. The said documents were kept in a parcel, sealed with the seal of SS and seized vide memo Ex. PW- 10/A. Two mobile phones make Nokia 1209 having Idea SIM and G-5 U969 having Idea SIM were recovered from accused Pramod and they were seized vide memo Ex. PW- 10/B. Upon search of accused Rajesh Kumar Mehto, three mobile phones and cash of Rs. 3,500/- was recovered which was seized vide memo Ex. PW-10/C. Accused Pramod and Rajesh Kumar Mehto were arrested and personally searched vide memos Ex. PW-10/D to Ex. PW- 10/G. Their disclosure statements Ex. PW-10/H and Ex. PW-10/I were also recorded by the IO.
35. Upon strict enquiry, Accused Pramod disclosed that they have tied and confined Ajay Kumar and Dharamveer in their house and co-accused Suresh was also present there. They led them to a jhuggi at Saidpur, Jahed, PS Ujjiarpur, PO Rupoli, District Samastipur, Bihar where Ajay and Dharamveer were found tied and accused Suresh was also present there. Ajay Kumar and Dharamveer were untied and recovery memo Ex. PW-11/A was prepared. The ropes with which the victims were tied were seized vide memos Ex. PW-11/B and Ex. PW-10/J. Accused Suresh was arrested and personally searched vide memos Ex. PW-
SC No. 56648-2016 State Vs. Parmod Kumar Rai Etc. FIR No. 92-2013 Page no.21/40 10/K and Ex. PW-10/L. His disclosure statement Ex. PW- 10/M was recorded. One mobile phone make Nokia was recovered from his possession and seized vide memo Ex. PW-10/N. All the three accused persons got recovered one yellow color sack from corner of a nearby hut which was found containing one HCL Laptop in burnt condition. It was seized vide memo Ex. PW-10/O. IO prepared the site plan of place of recovery of the victims which is Ex. PW- 11/C as well as site plan of place of recovery of burnt laptop which is Ex. PW-11/D. All the accused persons were produced before CJM Samastipur in the night hours and transit remand was obtained and they were brought to Delhi.
36. PW/SI Mohd. Haroon was dropped from the list of witnesses by Ld. Additional PP for the State vide his statement dated 10.07.2023 as PW-10 HC Deep Chand had already been examined on the same facts.
37. PW- SI Manoj and HC Jai Bhagwan were also dropped from the list of witnesses by Ld. Additional PP for the State vide his statement dated 27.02.2024 as PW-10 HC Deep Chand had already been examined on the same facts.
38. IO/Inspector Surinder Sandhu could not be examined as he had taken VRS and permanently shifted to Canada and his presence could not be secured. Accordingly, he was dropped vide order dated 14.12.2023.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED:
39. All the incriminating evidence that came on record in the deposition of prosecution witnesses was put in detail to the SC No. 56648-2016 State Vs. Parmod Kumar Rai Etc. FIR No. 92-2013 Page no.22/40 accused persons and their statements were recorded U/s. 313 Cr.PC. on 22.05.2024. In explanation to the incriminating evidence, the accused persons refuted all the evidence recorded against them stating that the prosecution witnesses were interested witnesses and they were falsely implicated in this case.
40. Accused persons stated that alleged victim Ajay used to extort money from the residents of their village because of which FIR No. 14/2013 u/s 420/406/467/468/34 IPC PS Ujiyarpur District Samastipur, Bihar was lodged against him by some residents of the village. It was because of this reason that complainant lodged the present false FIR against them as a counterblast.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
41. Accused persons examined two witnesses in support of their defence.
42. DW-1 Heeralal Shah is a resident of the same village as accused Parmod Kumar Rai and Suresh. He deposed that he knew the accused persons personally as accused Pramod Kumar Rai and Suresh are residents of his village and accused Rajesh Kumar Mehto is a resident of nearby village Shivan. In the year 2011-12, one Ajay Mehra had come to their village and had collected about 50-75 villagers and made a presentation regarding some investments. He had represented that he was willing to give money on loan to the farmers in the village and also assured that with the loan amount advanced, they could produce better crops and thereafter, he would also assist SC No. 56648-2016 State Vs. Parmod Kumar Rai Etc. FIR No. 92-2013 Page no.23/40 them in selling the produce. For the purpose of processing the loan, he collected about Rs. 50-75,000/- per head from various villagers who were interested in the scheme and also showed various documents to them. DW-1 had also given Rs. 75,000/- to Ajay on promise of advancing loan of Rs. 5 Lacs. In this manner, Ajay Mehra had collected more than 20-25 Lac rupees from the villagers. Thereafter, he left stating that after the processing, the money will be transferred to their bank accounts. However, despite lapse of about 5-7 months, no money was transferred in their accounts and slowly Ajay Mehra also stopped picking up his mobile phone. Accordingly, the accused persons namely Pramod Kumar Rai, Rajesh Kumar Mehto and Suresh Kumar traced Ajay Mehra who came to the village along with the accused persons where all the villagers who had given him money asked him to return the money taken by him if he was not advancing any loan. On being pressurized and surrounded by the villagers, Ajay Mehra stated that he would make a call so that the money of the villagers can be returned. He went aside and made a telephonic call. After some time, several police officials came to the village. They tried to explain them the manner in which they were cheated by Ajay Mehra but police officials did not pay any heed to their submissions. They also showed the documents given to them by Ajay Mehra but police did not consider them and they took Pramod Kumar Rai, Rajesh Kumar Mehto and Suresh Kumar with them and also, Ajay Mehra went with them. When they SC No. 56648-2016 State Vs. Parmod Kumar Rai Etc. FIR No. 92-2013 Page no.24/40 tried to protest, they were threatened with lathis and accordingly, they could not do anything. They had also filed criminal complaint against Ajay Mehra regarding his conduct. The certified copies of the criminal complaint, FIR registered against accused Ajay Mehra and other documents including the cheques issued by Ajay Mehra in the names of various victims are Ex. DW-1/A (Colly) (running into 111 pages). The documents given by Ajay Mehra to DW-1 for advancing the loan including the loan application form and terms and conditions of loan are Ex. DW-1/B (colly) (Running into 14 pages). The Accused persons Pramod Kumar Rai, Ajay Mehto and Suresh Kumar were later on falsely implicated in this case on the allegations that they had kidnapped Ajay Mehra and asked for money.
43. DW-2 Chander Shekhar Prabhakar is also a resident of a nearby village in District Darbhanga, Bihar and he deposed in consonance with testimony of DW-1. He also deposed that Ajay Mehra represented him to be from Hari Om Finance Company. He had given Rs. 87,000/- to Ajay Mehra on the promise of advancing loan of Rs. 10 Lacs to him. He also relied upon documents Ex. DW-1/A and Ex. DW-1/B.
44. Final arguments have been heard and record carefully perused.
JUDICIAL RESOLUTIONS:
45. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution is supposed to prove its case on the judicial file by leading SC No. 56648-2016 State Vs. Parmod Kumar Rai Etc. FIR No. 92-2013 Page no.25/40 cogent, convincing, reliable and trustworthy evidence beyond reasonable doubts. The case of the prosecution has to fall or stand on its own legs and it cannot derive the benefit from the weaknesses, if any, in the defence of the accused. It is not for the accused to disprove the case of the prosecution and the onus to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts never shifts and always remains on the prosecution. Further, benefit of doubt in the prosecution story always goes to the accused and it entitles the accused to acquittal.
46. In the present case, accused persons charged with the offence u/s 120B IPC and u/s 364A r/w 120B IPC.
47. Section 120B IPC provides punishment for the offence of criminal conspiracy to commit an offence. The offence of criminal conspiracy is defined in Section 120A IPC as per which when two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done an illegal act or an act which is not illegal, by illegal means, such an agreement is designated as criminal conspiracy. Agreement per se is not a punishable offence but it becomes punishable as a substantive offence when besides the agreement, some act is done in pursuance thereof.
48. To bring home the charge of conspiracy within the ambit of Section 120B IPC, it is necessary to establish that there was an agreement between the parties for doing an unlawful act. It is difficult to establish conspiracy by direct evidence as conspiracies are hatched in secrecy. Circumstances in a case when taken on their face value SC No. 56648-2016 State Vs. Parmod Kumar Rai Etc. FIR No. 92-2013 Page no.26/40 should indicate meeting of minds between the conspirators for the intended object of committing an illegal act or an act which is not illegal by illegal means. A few bits here and a few bits there relied upon by the prosecution cannot be held to be adequate for connecting the accused persons for the commission of the crime of criminal conspiracy. It has to be shown that all means adopted and illegal acts done were in furtherance of the object of conspiracy hatched. Circumstances relied upon for the purposes of drawing an inference should be prior in point of time than the actual commission of offence in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy.
49. Section 364A IPC provides punishment for the offence of kidnapping or abducting any person for ransom. The offence of abduction is defined in Section 362 IPC which provides that whoever by force compels, or by any deceitful means induces, any person to go from any place is set to abduct that person.
50. Now, let us apply the above discussed definitions of the offences with which accused persons have been charged on the facts of the present case.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED PERSONS:
51. It is submitted on behalf of accused persons that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove on record the offences charged against them beyond any reasonable doubt. No evidence has been brought on record to establish any criminal conspiracy between the accused persons pursuant to which the alleged victim Ajay Kumar was SC No. 56648-2016 State Vs. Parmod Kumar Rai Etc. FIR No. 92-2013 Page no.27/40 kidnapped by them for ransom. As per the testimony of Ajay Kumar/PW-11, accused Rajesh used to work in a financial company and used to talk to him in respect of a loan. However, he stated that he had gone to Samastipur, Bihar for purchasing a property as per a proposal given by accused Rajesh. It is difficult to believe that accused Rajesh who was allegedly working in a finance company gave proposal of purchase of land to the victim. Moreover, no evidence in this regard in the form of CDRs has been placed on record by the prosecution to prove and corroborate this statement of the victim Ajay Kumar/PW-
11. It is further submitted that alleged victim Ajay Kumar/PW-11 is clearly an unreliable witness as when he was questioned about the details of the incident and the manner in which and the place from where he was abducted, he showed his ignorance about various details and stated that he does not remember the details of the incident. He could not even tell the details of the amount deposited by his employee Rahul on his instructions or the amount withdrawn by the accused persons from the bank account of his mother or the amount of money taken by the accused persons from him. Moreover, Dharamveer/PW-14 who was also allegedly abducted along with Ajay Kumar had clearly stated that he had not seen any weapon in the possession of the accused persons. He also admitted that they were taken out by the accused persons for nature call but still they did not raise any alarm. All these statements make the entire case of the prosecution highly SC No. 56648-2016 State Vs. Parmod Kumar Rai Etc. FIR No. 92-2013 Page no.28/40 unbelievable.
52. In addition to this, although, it is stated both by PW-11 and PW-14 that they were beaten by the accused persons after being abducted, however, interestingly, no MLC of the alleged victims was got conducted by the IO after their alleged recovery. Moreover, although, the accused persons were apprehended and victims were recovered in a different state and under jurisdiction of a different police station, still, no local police officials were involved in the entire proceedings. This is again sufficient to cloud the entire case of prosecution with doubt.
53. It is further submitted that as per the case of the accused persons, the victim Ajay Kumar had cheated various villagers of their hard earned money on the pretext of advancing loans to them. He was called to District Samastipur, Bihar as he had stopped picking up the calls of the villagers and was neither advancing them loans nor returning the money taken by him from the villagers. At the time of incident, when all the villagers pressurised him to return back their money, he requested them to permit him to make a call so that he can arrange for the money but instead of arranging the money, he conspired and got the accused persons involved in the present false case of kidnapping. The defence of the accused persons is fortified by the fact that various villagers have already filed a case of cheating against the alleged victim Ajay Kumar which is still pending in Bihar Court. This fact is admitted by Ajay Kumar/PW-11 in his cross-examination. All the relevant SC No. 56648-2016 State Vs. Parmod Kumar Rai Etc. FIR No. 92-2013 Page no.29/40 documents have been proved as Ex. DW-1/A and Ex. DW- 1/B. Alleged victim Ajay Kumar/PW-11 has also admitted his signatures on the cheques issued by him to the villagers for return of the amount taken by him from them (Ex. PW- 11/DA). Although, he tried to explain the issuance of cheque by stating that his signed cheque book was stolen, but he failed to bring on record any relevant document in this regard. Moreover, several such cheques have been issued by the victim Ajay Kumar, copies of which have been annexed with documents Ex. DW-1/A (colly). It is submitted that all these documents and admissions of PW- 11 makes the defence of the accused persons quite probable and this probability is sufficient to create a doubt on the entire story of the prosecution and benefit of this doubt has to be given to the accused persons. Hence, it is submitted that since the case of the prosecution is clouded with doubt, they are entitled to acquittal in the present case.
ARGUMENTS BY LD. ADDITIONAL PP FOR THE STATE:
54. Per contra, it is submitted by Ld. Additional PP for the State that the prosecution has duly proved on record the offences charged against the accused persons beyond any reasonable doubt. Both the victims Ajay Kumar/PW-11 and Dharambir/PW-14 have duly supported the case of the prosecution and have deposed about the manner in which they were abducted by the accused persons and the ransom demands were made. Ld. Defence Counsel has failed to SC No. 56648-2016 State Vs. Parmod Kumar Rai Etc. FIR No. 92-2013 Page no.30/40 point out any contradictions in the deposition of these two witnesses. In addition to the testimony of these witnesses, prosecution has corroborated the entire incident and the manner in which the ransom demands were made by the accused persons from the testimony of the complainant Monika Mehra/PW-12, mother of the victim Pushpa Arya/PW-9 as well as his employee Rahul/PW-1. The person who was engaged to pick up the money from Delhi and deliver it to accused Parmod in Bihar namely Surender has also been examined as PW-8 and he has also duly supported the case of the prosecution in this regard.
Apprehension of Surinder is duly proved on record from the testimonies of PW-1 Rahul and police witnesses PW-2 Ct. Vinod, PW-4 Ct. Praveen and PW-5 SI Aditya. The entire proceedings of apprehension of accused persons and recovery of the victims is duly proved on record by the testimony of PW-10 HC Deep Chand. There are no contradictions in the testimonies of these witnesses to create a doubt on the case of the prosecution. The fact that the victims were found in custody of all the accused persons while accused Pramod and Rajesh had come to pick up the money and accused Rajesh had lured the victim Ajay Kumar to Bihar on the pretext of purchasing property at lower prices clearly show that there was a criminal conspiracy hatched between the accused persons with the intention of abducting victim Ajay Kumar for ransom. Thus, the prosecution has duly proved on record the offences charged against the accused persons beyond SC No. 56648-2016 State Vs. Parmod Kumar Rai Etc. FIR No. 92-2013 Page no.31/40 any reasonable doubt.
55. As regards the defence of the accused persons, it is clearly an afterthought. Although, victim Ajay Kumar/PW-11 has admitted that criminal case was pending against him at Samastipur, Bihar but he has specifically testified that the said case was registered after lodging of the present FIR. Accordingly, this defence of the accused persons is not sufficient to create a doubt on the case of the prosecution and is liable to be rejected. Thus, it is submitted that considering the overall evidence produced on record, all the accused persons are liable for conviction. APPRECIATION OF FACTS, EVIDENCE & LAW:
56. I have given my thoughtful considerations to the submissions made by the prosecution as well as defence and have carefully perused the entire record.
57. The prime witnesses in the present case are the victims themselves that are PW-11 Ajay Kumar and PW-14 Dharambir. The testimonies of these two witnesses show many contradictions regarding the details of the case. As per PW-11, immediately when they got down at Samastipur, Bihar, the accused persons met them and wrongfully confined them and demanded ransom of Rs. 20-25 Lacs initially and thereafter, Rs. 10 Lacs. However, as per testimony of PW-14, they stayed at a hotel after reaching Bihar and the accused persons came to their hotel in the evening hours and took them to their village Saidpur, District Samastipur, Bihar where they were held captive. PW-14 stated that on the asking of the accused SC No. 56648-2016 State Vs. Parmod Kumar Rai Etc. FIR No. 92-2013 Page no.32/40 persons, Ajay had told his wife telephonically that they had been abducted and accused persons were demanding Rs. 20-25 Lacs as ransom amount. As per the testimony of PW-11, Accused persons had withdrawn Rs. 14000/- through ATM card of his mother whereas as per the testimony of PW-14, they had withdrawn Rs. 15000/-. PW- 11 testified that there were some villagers unknown to him along with the accused persons at the place where they were kept in confinement. However, as per the testimony of PW-14, no other person was present except the accused persons in the room where they were held captive. PW-11 stated that there were two huts, one with grass roof and one with pakka roof and they were kept in the hut with grass roof during morning hours and taken to the hut with pakka roof during night hours where they were tortured. However, PW-14 did not depose anything in this regard. Thus, the testimonies of the victims PW-11 and PW-14 are not consistent and corroborative of each other. These contradictions become all the more alarming when seen in the light of other evidence that has come on record as well as defence of the accused persons which is discussed hereinunder.
58. Testimonies of mother of victim Ajay Kumar namely Smt. Pushpa Arya/PW-9 and his wife namely Smt. Monika Mehra/PW-12 are also contradictory on certain material aspects. As per the testimony of PW-9, on 21.02.2013, she received a phone call from her son Ajay who asked her to get one mobile number recharged and she got the same SC No. 56648-2016 State Vs. Parmod Kumar Rai Etc. FIR No. 92-2013 Page no.33/40 recharged through some boy. Thereafter, her son called her from that number but being nervous, she was unable to speak to him and asked an employee to talk to her son. The said employee namely Rahul/PW-1 informed her after 1-2 hours that everything did not seem well there. However, as per the testimony of PW-12, she had received a phone call from her husband on her mobile phone on 21.02.2013 at about 05:30 PM who told her that he wanted to talk to Rahul and asked her to call Rahul. She handed over her mobile phone to Rahul and her husband informed Rahul that he and Dharamveer were kidnapped by accused persons. In the evening on 21.02.2013, her husband called her mother in law and asked her to get recharge on a mobile number for Rs. 200 which was got recharged. Thereafter, she made a call on that number and talked to her husband who asked her to deposit cash of Rs. 15000/- in the account of her mother in law and also informed her that the kidnappers were demanding cash of Rs. 20 Lacs for releasing them. Her husband also told her that on the next day, one person will come at Tilak Nagar Metro Station for taking cash of Rs. 10 Lacs and asked her to ask Rahul to hand over the cash. PW-9 deposed that her son Ajay had informed her to deposit Rs. 15 Lacs in her account as the kidnappers were demanding Rs. 15-20 Lacs whereas as per the testimony of PW-12, her husband Ajay asked for deposit of Rs. 15000/- in the bank account of her mother in law. PW-9 deposed that there was no further conversation with her son Ajay on that night but she had SC No. 56648-2016 State Vs. Parmod Kumar Rai Etc. FIR No. 92-2013 Page no.34/40 received a message from her son on her phone from some other number that she should deposit a sum of Rs. 10 Lacs without fail by the next morning into her account. There is no such deposition of PW-12. PW-9 testified that her son informed her that one person by the name of Surinder would come at metro station Tilak Nagar on the next day at about 12:30 PM to whom money should be handed over whereas as per the testimony of PW-12, her husband informed her that a person by the name of Suresh would come to receive amount of Rs. 10 Lacs at Tilak Nagar Metro Station. As per the testimony of PW-9, Rahul did not take any money to Tilak Nagar Metro Station but as per the testimony of PW-12, he had taken a cash of Rs. 3,50,000/- with him. The above mentioned contradictions in the testimonies of PW-9 and PW-12 are sufficient to cloud the case of the prosecution as regards the incidents as they had transpired with doubt.
59. The employee of victim Ajay namely Rahul has been examined as PW-1 and he gave an even different version of the sequence of events. As per his testimony, on 21.02.2013, at about 02-02:30 PM, Ms. Monika Mehra/PW-12 gave him a mobile number and asked to get the same recharged for Rs. 200. Thereafter, at about 05- 05:30 PM, in his presence, a telephonic call was received by PW-12 from Ajay Mehra who asked to speak to him. While speaking to him, Ajay Mehra softly told him that he had been kidnapped and kidnappers were demanding ransom amount of Rs. 20-25 Lacs. Thereafter, he went to SC No. 56648-2016 State Vs. Parmod Kumar Rai Etc. FIR No. 92-2013 Page no.35/40 his house. On 22.02.2013, at about 09:00 AM, PW-12 gave him Rs. 15000/- for depositing in the bank account of PW- 9 which he deposited. Thereafter, PW-12 asked him to go to Tilak Nagar Metro Station and gave him mobile number of one Surender stating that he would come to collect Rs. 10 Lacs. He was sent to Metro Station along with police.
60. These contradictions in the testimonies of prime prosecution witnesses make their evidence unreliable and doubtful. The benefit of this unreliability and doubts has to be given to the accused persons.
61. In addition to these contradictions, the entire proceedings of recovery of the victims from Samastipur, Bihar are completely clouded with doubt. The IO who had conducted the proceedings could not be examined due to his unavailability. Only one police witness namely HC Deep Chand/PW-10 has been examined to prove the said proceedings including the recovery of the victims as well as various recoveries made at the instance of the accused persons. Neither any local police at Bihar was informed about the raid being conducted for recovery of kidnapped persons, nor they were involved in the entire proceedings for the reasons best known to the IO. No independent public witness from the village was also involved in the alleged recovery proceedings again creating a doubt on the same. No other police witness to the said proceedings has also been examined by the prosecution. The only public witness to the alleged recovery proceedings is PW-8/Surender whose testimony is contradictory to that of SC No. 56648-2016 State Vs. Parmod Kumar Rai Etc. FIR No. 92-2013 Page no.36/40 PW-10. No police witness who had accompanied PW-8 Surender to Bihar has been examined by the prosecution, thus, creating a doubt on the testimony of PW-8 who is a person who had allegedly come to collect the ransom amount. In addition to this, PW-8 denied being a witness to any recoveries and simply stated that police has taken his signatures on certain papers. Thus, the entire proceedings regarding recovery of the alleged victims from the custody of the accused persons while they were held captive are clouded with doubt. The alleged recoveries of belongings of the alleged victims at the instance of accused persons are again colored with doubt. Moreover, despite the allegations that victims were tortured while in captivity no medical examination of the victims was got conducted after their alleged recovery. As per the testimony of PW- 8/Surender, all the accused persons were apprehended near the post office while as per the testimony of PW-14, accused Suresh was found with the victims at the place of confinement. These contradictions again make the entire recovery proceedings doubtful.
62. In addition to these contradictions, the investigation is highly lacking in collection of material evidence. IO has not collected the CDRs of the victim Ajay and accused Rajesh to prove the allegations that accused Rajesh had called Ajay to Bihar, under a conspiracy on the pretext of purchasing a land. No CDR of mobile number 9934979501 from which the alleged ransom call was made by the accused persons through victim Ajay has been collected or SC No. 56648-2016 State Vs. Parmod Kumar Rai Etc. FIR No. 92-2013 Page no.37/40 placed on record. No CDR of Surender and accused Pramod are collected to establish their contact for pickup of ransom amount. These lacunae in investigation also surrounds the case of the prosecution with doubt.
63. All these doubts on the story of the prosecution and the links in the chain which have remained unexplained are sufficient to doubt the case of the prosecution, the benefit of which has to be given to the accused persons.
64. Moreover, the accused persons have put forth a defence case that they and other villagers were cheated by alleged victim Ajay who had taken their hard earned money on the pretext of granting them loan and thereafter, neither gave them loan nor returned their money. It is the case of the accused persons that at the relevant time, victim Ajay was called to the village and was asked to return the money taken by him from the villagers. When all the villagers pressurized him in this regard, he asked for making a call on the pretext that he will arrange the money and later on manipulated the story and showed himself as a victim of abduction for ransom. The innocent villagers were not aware about what he was planning and were shocked when police from Delhi reached there and arrested the accused persons. In order to prove their defence, the accused persons examined two defence witnesses as DW-1 and DW-2 and also relied upon various loan documents handed over to them by the alleged victim Ajay Mehra. They also proved the documents of pending cheating case filed against Ajay Mehra at Bihar which are Ex. DW-1/A (colly) SC No. 56648-2016 State Vs. Parmod Kumar Rai Etc. FIR No. 92-2013 Page no.38/40 including certain cheques issued by Ajay Mehra in favour of certain villagers. Victim Ajay Mehra/PW-11 has himself admitted in his cross-examination of having issued certain cheques in this regard and has admitted his signatures on cheque (Ex. PW-11/DA). He could not explain as to why the said cheque was issued. He also admitted that criminal case was filed against him and pending in the court of Samastipur, Bihar. Perusal of testimony of PW-11 also clearly shows that he was knowing the accused persons prior to the date of incident especially accused Rajesh. All these admissions of PW-11 and testimonies of DW-1 and DW-2 and documents pertaining to criminal case pending against Ajay Mehra in the court of Samastipur, Bihar give probability to the defence of the accused persons. This probability is sufficient to doubt the entire case of the prosecution and it cannot be held that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused persons beyond any reasonable doubt.
CONCLUSION:
65. Considering the overall evidence produced on record and the reasons and discussions hereinabove, I have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond any reasonable doubt. The prosecution witnesses are unreliable and untrustworthy for the reasons discussed above. The evidence is insufficient and filled with unexplained contradictions. Moreover, the accused persons have put forth a plausible defence. Thus, all the accused SC No. 56648-2016 State Vs. Parmod Kumar Rai Etc. FIR No. 92-2013 Page no.39/40 persons are acquitted for the offences as charged against them giving them the benefit of doubt.
66. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signedSHIVALI by SHIVALI SHARMA SHARMA Date:
Announced in the open court 2025.01.21
15:22:59 +0530
Dated 21.01.2025
(SHIVALI SHARMA)
ASJ-03/WEST/THC/DELHI
21.01.2025
SC No. 56648-2016 State Vs. Parmod Kumar Rai Etc. FIR No. 92-2013 Page no.40/40