Delhi District Court
State vs . Sangeeta Etc. on 3 November, 2010
IN THE COURT OF SH. VISHAL SINGH : MM : DELHI
State Vs. Sangeeta etc.
FIR No. 454/05.
U/s. 363/368 IPC.
PS Mangol Puri, Delhi.
JUDGMENT
a) The sl. no. of the case : 140/2.
b) The Unique ID No. of the case : 02401R0986492005.
c) The date of commission of the : 13/07/2005.
offence
d) The date of institution of case : 21/10/2005.
e) The name of the complainant : Smt. Mithlesh.
f) The name & address of accused :1Smt. Sangeeta, W/o. Jaggu
Sahu, R/o. Vill. Sanwkalan
PS Amas, District Gaya,
(Bihar).
2Jaggu, S/o. Keshwar Sahu,
R/o. do
g) The offence complained of : U/s. 363/34 IPC.
h) The plea of the accused : pleaded not guilty.
i) The date of reserving the order : 29/10/2010.
FIR No. 454/05
PS Mangol Puri Page 1
j) The final order : Accused Sangeeta convicted
U/s. 363 IPC.
Accused Jaggu convicted
U/s. 363 IPC r/w. Sec 368
IPC.
k) The date of such order : 02/11/2010.
THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT :
1. Brief resume of facts of the present case are that on 13/07/2005, at about 4:00 pm, at I188, Mangol Puri, Delhi, accused Sangeeta kidnapped a baby boy namely Sandeep, aged around 1½ years from the lawful guardianship of her mother Smt. Mithlesh, without her consent and accused Jaggu Sahu had wrongfully concealed (or confined) the said boy knowing that he had been kidnapped by accused Sangeeta. The complaint was made to the police and after investigation, the challan was filed by the police.
2. Complete set of copies were supplied to the accused and after hearing arguments, charge was framed against the accused Sangeeta for trial of FIR No. 454/05 PS Mangol Puri Page 2 offence U/s. 363 IPC, whereas accused Jaggu Sahu was charged for the offence U/s. 368 IPC by my Ld. Predecessor to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Prosecution in support of present case examined PW.1 Ram Roop, father of victim boy who has proved the recovery of his son vide memo Ex. PW1/A and arrest of accused persons vide memo Ex. PW1/B and PW1/C. PW.2 is Smt. Mithlesh, mother of victim boy, who has proved her complaint Ex. PW2/A given to the police. PW.3 is HC Murthi Devi, who had joined the investigation along with IO and visited the native place of accused persons at Gaya, Bihar. PW.4 Ct. Bharathri is a formal witness in this case. PW.5 is ASI Madan lal, Duty Officer, who has proved the copy of FIR Ex. PW5/A. PW.6 is Ct. Naresh Kumar, who had joined the investigation along with IO SI Mahender Singh and also identified the accused persons in court correctly. PW.7 is SI Mahender Singh, IO in this case, who has proved the investigation conducted in this case and proved DD entry 80B vide Ex. PW7/A, rukka Ex. PW7/B, FIR No. 454/05 PS Mangol Puri Page 3 portrait of accused persons vide Ex. PW2/B and PW2/C and other memos on the record.
4. Statement of accused persons was recorded separately U/s. 313 CrPC, wherein they pleaded innocence and false implication in this case, however, they did not wish to examine any witness in support of their defence.
5. I have heard arguments from Ld. APP for State, Ld. Defence Counsels for accused persons and also gone through the evidence and documents on record carefully.
6. To prove the offence U/s. 363/368 IPC, the prosecution has to prove that accused persons had committed the above alleged offences. Before proceeding further, I would like to quote Section 363/368 IPC as under :
The definition of kidnapping from lawful guardianship has been given U/s. 361 IPC, which says :FIR No. 454/05
PS Mangol Puri Page 4
361. Kidnapping from lawful guardianship. Whoever takes or entices any minor under (sixteen) years of age if a male, or under (eighteen) years of age if a female, or any person of unsound mind, out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor or person of unsound mind, without the consent of such guardian, is said to kidnap such minor or person from lawful guardianship.
The punishment U/s. 363 IPC and U/s. 368 is described as under :
Sec. 363. Punishment for kidnapping. Whoever kidnaps any person from (India) or from lawful guardianship, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Sec. 368. Wrongfully concealing or keeping in confinement, kidnapped or abducted person. Whoever, knowing that any person has been kidnapped or has been abducted, wrongfully conceals or confines such person, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had kidnapped or abducted such person with the same intention or knowledge, or for the same purpose as that with or for which he conceals or detains such person in confinement.
7. The prosecution in this case has examined seven witnesses in total. Regarding the incident, the prosecution has examined PW.2 Smt. Mithlesh, who has deposed that she knows accused Sangeeta, present in the court, who was residing in their neighbourhood in H Block along with her husband Jaggu and dever Bhola. On 17/10/2006, she has deposed in court that on 13th of July, about one and half years ago at FIR No. 454/05 PS Mangol Puri Page 5 about 4:00 pm, accused Sangeeta, present in court came to her house and her child Sandeep, aged around 1½ years was playing in her house and accused Sangeeta asked her to accompany her to market, but she refused and then accused started playing with her son Sandeep. She further deposed that she started combing her hairs and Sangeeta took away her child in the gali and after about 15/20 minutes, when she came down from the 2nd floor of their house, she did not find Sangeeta and her son. She further deposed that she made inquiry from the neighbourhood, but Sangeeta and her son were not found. She further deposed that she also searched Sangeeta at her house, but she was also not found there. She further deposed that husband and dever of Sangeeta were also missing from their house. She further deposed that she informed to the police and they came there and recorded her statement Ex. PW2/A. She further deposed that on the next day, she was called at police office Ashok Vihar and on her descriptions, the sketch of accused persons were prepared vide Ex. PW2/B and PW2/C. She further deposed that after about one week, her child was recovered. FIR No. 454/05
PS Mangol Puri Page 6
8. The other material witness in this case is PW.1 Ram Roop, father of victim boy, who has deposed that on 13/07/2005, when he returned at his house at about 8:30 pm, his wife told him that accused Sangeeta had come to their house and took away their child. He further deposed that the sektch of accused persons were prepared by the police. He further deposed that on 18/07/2005, he along with the police officials namely SI Mahender Singh, Ct. Naresh Kumar and Wct. Murthi went in search of accused persons and his kidnapped son at Savkalan village, Bihar. He further deposed that he found his son Sandeep and accused Sangeeta there. He further deposed that the child was recovered by the police vide memo Ex. PW1/A and both the accused persons were arrested vide memo Ex. PW1/B and PW1/C. He further deposed that the child was handed over to him vide memo Ex. PW1/D.
9. The prosecution has examined PW.3 WHC Murthi Devi and PW.6 Ct. Naresh Kumar, who had accompanied the IO and father of victim to the village of accused persons in search of son of complainant Smt. FIR No. 454/05 PS Mangol Puri Page 7 Mithlesh. They have deposed on the same line and length and have corroborated the statement of PW.1 Sh. Ram Roop on all the material aspects of this case. The prosecution has also examined PW.7 SI Mahender Singh, IO in this case, who has deposed that on 13/07/2005, on receipt of DD No. 80B, Ex. PW7/A, he along with Ct. Bharthari went at the place of incident at I188, Mangol Puri, Delhi where he met Smt. Mithlesh and recorded her complaint Ex. PW2/A regarding kidnapping of her child, aged around 1½ years. He has proved the rukka Ex. PW7/B and the sketch of accused persons vide Ex. PW2/B and PW2/C. He further deposed that on 16/07/2005, he obtained the permanent village address of accused persons through his informer and on 18/07/2005, he along with Ct. Naresh Kumar, WHC Murthi Devi and Smt. Ram Roop went at village Sav Kalan, PS Amas, District Gaya, Bihar. He further deposed that there he made DD entry in this regard at PS Amas and on his request, SHO PS Amas provided some police officials with whom he went at the house of accused persons and got recovered the son of complainant, who was in the lap of accused FIR No. 454/05 PS Mangol Puri Page 8 Sangeeta at that time, and accused Jaggu was also found present there. He has proved the recovery memo of child vide Ex. PW1/A and arrest of accused persons vide personal search memo Ex. PW3/A and PW3/B. He has also proved the photograph of the kidnapped child as Ex. P1. All the witnesses of prosecution have fully supported the prosecution case and their testimonies on record is found cogent, coherent and there is no reason to disbelieve their statement. The witnesses examined by the prosecution on record are corroborating each other on all the material aspects. There is no inconsistency or inherent contradiction in their statement.
10.The accused persons have taken the limited defence that they are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case by the complainant, who was having inimical relations with them. However, neither have they crossexamined the complainant PW.2 and her husband PW.1 in order to show if there were any inimical terms between them nor they have examined any witness in support of their FIR No. 454/05 PS Mangol Puri Page 9 defence to prove the stand taken by them. Further, in three lines cross examination before deferring of PW.1 by Ld. Defence Counsel for accused persons, the suggestion put by Ld. Counsel has been admitted by PW.1 that both the accused persons are childless. Thus, from this statement, the motive of accused persons for kidnapping the child of complainant has also come on record.
11.From the depositions of PW.1, PW.2 and the statement of police witnesses on record, it is crystal clear that the accused Sangeeta had kidnapped the one and a half year child of complainant PW.2 from her lawful guardianship and accused Jaggu had concealed the said child knowing that he was kidnapped by accused Sangeeta. The bare reading of Section 368 IPC shows that the person who wrongfully conceals or confines the kidnapped or abducted person shall be punished in the same manner as if he had kidnapped or abducted such person. In this case, though the offence of kidnapping the child from the lawful guardianship of her mother was committed by accused Sangeeta, but by FIR No. 454/05 PS Mangol Puri Page 10 concealing/confining the child despite knowing that the child was kidnapped one, accused Jaggu also joined his wife/accused Sangeeta in kidnapping. Thus the acts done by accused persons bring them right within the frame of Section 363/368 of Indian Penal Code.
12.Hence, in view of the above observation and discussion and the evidence on record, in my opinion, the prosecution has successfully proved the case against the accused persons beyond all shadows of reasonable doubt. Therefore, I hereby hold both the accused Sangeeta guilty for the offence U/s. 363 IPC, whereas accused Jaggu U/s. 363 IPC r/w. 368 IPC and convict them accordingly. Order on sentence shall be announced after hearing the accused persons.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN
COURT ON 02/11/2010. (VISHAL SINGH)
Metropolitan Magistrate
(Copies 1 + 1) Delhi
FIR No. 454/05
PS Mangol Puri Page 11
IN THE COURT OF SH. VISHAL SINGH : MM : DELHI
State Vs. Sangeeta etc.
FIR No. 454/05.
U/s. 363/368 IPC.
PS Mangol Puri, Delhi.
ORDER ON SENTENCE
Present: Ld APP for State
Accused/Convicted persons Sangeeta and Jaggu are present on bail with Counsel.
Arguments on sentence heard. It is argued by the counsel for the defence that it is an old case of the year 2005 and convict are facing trial from the last more than 5 years. It is further stated that facing trial for such a long period is itself a punishment for the convicted persons and hence they are entitled to benefit of probation for good conduct and also moved an application in this regard. It is further submitted that the age of accused Sangeeta is around 30 years, whereas accused Jaggu is around 35 years og age. It is further submitted that the convicted persons are not FIR No. 454/05 PS Mangol Puri Page 12 habitual offenders and have never been previously convicted by any competent court of law.
On the other hand, it is stated by Ld. APP that the only fact that is is an old case does not entitle the convict for any lenient view. It is further stated by Ld. APP that convict deserves maximum punishment.
It is true on the one hand that there is no record of previous conviction against the convicted persons and they are facing trial since 2005, but on the other hand, the accused have been convicted for the offences, which are serious in nature. Hence, keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made on behalf of accused persons, I hereby sentenced the accused/convict Sangeeta for a period of three years rigorous imprisonment for the offence U/s. 363 IPC and further to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/ i.d. five months SI. Accused/convict Jaggu is sentenced for a period of three years rigorous imprisonment for the offence U/s. 363 IPC r/w. Sec. 368 IPC and further to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/ i.d. five months SI. The benefit of section 428 Cr.P.C is given to the convicted persons and any previous imprisonment suffered by them in this case shall be set FIR No. 454/05 PS Mangol Puri Page 13 off against the substantive period of imprisonment awarded to them. File be consigned to Record Room.
Copy of Judgment and order on sentence be provided to the convicted persons free of cost.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN
COURT ON 03/11/2010. (VISHAL SINGH)
Metropolitan Magistrate
(Copies 1 +1) Delhi
FIR No. 454/05
PS Mangol Puri Page 14
State Vs. Sangeeta etc.
FIR No. 454/05.
U/s. 363/368 IPC.
PS Mangol Puri, Delhi.
03/11/2010
Ld. APP for State.
Accused/convicted persons on bail with counsel. Heard arguments. Vide separate order, the accused/convict Sangeeta is sentenced for a period of three years rigorous imprisonment for the offence U/s. 363 IPC and further to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/ i.d. five months SI. Accused/convict Jaggu is sentenced for a period of three years rigorous imprisonment for the offence U/s. 363 IPC r/w. Sec. 368 IPC and further to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/ i.d. five months SI. The benefit of section 428 Cr.P.C is given to the convicted persons and any previous imprisonment suffered by them in this case shall be set off against the substantive period of imprisonment awarded to them.
At this stage, the convicted persons moved an application and submits that they intends to appeal against the sentence passed against them by this court and seeks interim bail till the filing of appeal. The convicted persons were on bail during the trial. In view of submissions FIR No. 454/05 PS Mangol Puri Page 15 made, the convicted persons are admitted to bail U/s. 389 (3) CrPC on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 20,000/ and one surety to the like amount. Neither the fine has been deposited by the accused/convicted persons nor the bail bonds have been furnished by them. Both the convicted persons be taken in to custody and sent to JC to serve their sentence. Their sentence commences forthwith. File be consigned to Record Room.
(VISHAL SINGH)
Metropolitan Magistrate
Delhi 03/11/2010
FIR No. 454/05
PS Mangol Puri Page 16