Delhi District Court
State vs . on 18 September, 2010
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR GOYAL
ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE: FAST TRACK COURT
ROHINI:DELHI
SC No. 12/02
Unique Identification No. 02404R0136542006
State Vs.
1) Krishan Kumar
Son of Sh. Uttam Chand
R/o E-31, Ranjit Singh Road,
Adarsh Nagar, Delhi.
2) Ram Rati
W/o Ram Niwas
R/o H.No. B-32, Kewal Park,
Azadpur, Delhi.
3) Satpal
Son of Ram Niwas
R/o H.No. B-32, Kewal Park,
Azadpur, Delhi.
FIR No. 584/01
PS - S.P. Badli
U/s. 342/364A/365/366/384/506/120B of IPC
Date of institution of the case: 24/11/2001
Arguments heard on: 14/09/2010
Date of reservation of order: 14/09/2010
Date of Decision: 18/09/2010
JDGMENT
This case was registered against the accused persons on the complaint of
one Charanjeet Kaur U/s. 342/364/365/384/506/120B of IPC. According to the
complaint, one Lakhbir Kaur and Amarjeet Singh, children of complainant
Charanjeet Kaur were kidnapped by the accused persons and they were demanding
ransom against the release of her children. On 04/09/2001, rough site plan was
SC No. 12/02 1/70
prepared at the instance of Charanjeet Kaur.
According to the complainant and her husband Swaran Singh, they
struck a deal to pay ransom of Rs. One lac against the release of their daughter
Lakhbir Kaur. Handing over memo of currency notes of Rs. 50,000/- each packet,
having original currency note each on the top and bottom of the packet, bearing
signatures of Swaran Singh, was prepared and these were handed over to accused
Krishan Kumar and Ram Rati. Lakhbir Kaur was recovered from Maruti car No.
DL-2CB-0874 of accused Krishan Kumar. Both accused Krishan Kumar and Ram
Rati were arrested in this case. They made disclosure statements. Later on, one
Neetu Goyal was also recovered on the pointing of accused Krishan Kumar from
H.No. 228, Gali No. 10, Nathupura, Burari, Delhi. Both Lakhbir Kaur and Neetu
Goyal were sent for their medical examination and were further sent to Nari
Niketan.
According to the application given by the IO ASI Daya Chand, Amarjeet
Singh and his brother Gurpal Singh were traced/recovered from the area of Bhagya
Vihar, Madanpur Dabas, PS Kanjhawala. Gurpal was 24 years and Amarjeet Singh
was aged about 16 years. Statement of Amarjeet Singh was recorded on 15/12/2002
and statement of Gurpal Singh was recorded on 17/12/2002 U/s. 164 of CrPC. Both
did not depose anything against the accused persons.
On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against accused
Krishan Kumar and Ram Rati U/s. 342/364A/365/366/384/506/120B of IPC and
Accused Satpal and Nomita Mata were shown as proclaimed offenders. By the order
of the court, accused Satpal was directed not to be arrested. So, he appeared before
the Court on 30/05/2002.
The case was committed to the Court of Session for 15/01/2003 and it
was received on the same day.
On 09/07/2004, charge U/s. 120B of IPC, 365 of IPC, 364A of IPC, 342
of IPC, 366 and 506 Part-II of IPC was framed against accused Satpal and Ram
Rati. Accused Krishan Kumar also became proclaimed offender and later on he was
SC No. 12/02 2/70
arrested. Charge U/s. 120B of IPC, 365 read with section 34 of IPC, 364A read with
Section 34 of IPC, 366 read with section 34 of IPC and 506 read with Section 34 of
IPC was framed against accused Krishan Kumar on 18/04/2007. All the three
accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
To prove its case, prosecution has examined PW1 to PW19 in all.
Statements of all the three accused were recorded.
In defence, accused Krishan Kumar has stated that " he is innocent. He
was falsely implicated by the complainant as they were under impression that he
was involved in the marriage of their children. Satpal is husband of Lakhbir Kaur
and they married with their own sweet will. Parents of Lakhbir Kaur were not
happy with said marriage and in the year 2000, Swaran Singh, husband of
complainant had kidnapped Ramrati, mother of Satpal Singh, to presurize her to
dissolve the marriage, against which a FIR was also registered in PS S.P. Badli
and due to this reason complainant had filed this false and fabricated case against
them. He is not involved in kidnapping of their children as no such kidnapping took
place."
Accused Ram Rati has stated that "she is innocent. She was falsely
implicated by the complainant. Earlier Swaran Singh had kidnapped her for
pressurizing to dissolve the marriage of their children, against which a FIR was
also registered in PS S.P. Badli and due to this reason complainant had filed this
false and fabricated case against them to pressurize her to withdraw the said case.
She is not involved in kidnapping of their children as no such kidnapping took
place."
Accused Satpal has stated that "he has got married with Lakhbir Kaur
with his own sweet will and to take revenge, his mother was kidnapped by
complainant for which FIR was lodged by them and to pressurize them to withdraw
that case, complainant had lodged this false case."
I have heard Ld. Addl. PP for State and defence counsel for accused
persons and have gone through the material brought on record with evidence
adduced.
Finding qua offence U/s. 365 of IPC:
According to the charge, accused persons in furtherance of their criminal
conspiracy, abducted Lakhbir Kaur and Amarjeet Singh with intent to secretly and
wrongfully confined them.
Complainant Charanjeet Kaur in her complaint Ex. PW5/A has stated
SC No. 12/02 3/70
that she and her family members used to visit temple of Maa Kalyug Nashini. They
were influenced by the miracles of Mata Nomita and according to her directions, her
elder son Gurpal Singh constructed the roof of the temple without any labour and by
the order of Mata Nomita, Gurpal Singh also started residing in the temple.
Complainant Charanjeet Kaur has further stated that after sometime,
when she had gone in the temple with her daughter Lakhbir Kaur and son Amarjeet
Singh to see Mata Nomita, then Mata Nomita @ Maa Kalyug Nashini directed that
Lakhbir Kaur and Amarjeet Singh will not go out of the temple. When she resisted,
then at the instance of Mata Nomita, accused Ram Rati, Krishan Kumar and Satpal
gave beatings to her and threw her out of the temple and confined Lakhbir Kaur and
Amarjeet Singh forcibly in the ashram. She came to her house, while crying, and
informed her husband. Her husband came back from his office. They both went to
ashram, but none heard their cries. Complainant Charanjeet Kaur has further stated
that thereafter, they informed the local police, but nothing could be done.
Complainant Charanjeet Kaur has proved this complaint as Ex. PW5/A.
So, according to the complainant, she had gone with her children Lakhbir Kaur and
Amarjeet Singh to visit temple of Maa Kalyug Nashini, where at the instance of
Mata Nomita, accused persons confined Lakhbir Kaur and Amarjeet Singh forcibly
and did not allow them to go.
Complainant Charanjeet Kaur has been examined by the prosecution as
PW5. She has stated that she has three children i.e. Gurpal Singh, Lakhbir Kaur and
Amarjeet Singh, aged about 29/30 years, 28 years and 22 years. PW5 has stated that
accused Ram Rati was the Chief Pujaran of a place at Mukundpur, where she took
her before a lady, who claimed to be Vaishno Devi. The place was a house like
structure, in which, photograph of Mata Nomita was placed. She used to claim
herself as Vaishno Devi. She also used to claim herself as Maa Durga and Maa Kali.
Accused Ram Rati was her neighbour. When PW5 went to Mukundpur, Mata
Nomita showed them miracles and produced Prasad and Bhabhuti by simply waving
her hands in air and gave the same to her. She became impressed and started
SC No. 12/02 4/70
visiting the temple. Her husband and her son constructed tin roof over the ashram,
but did not charge anything. After sometime, her son Gurpal started residing there.
Her son used to visit the place for removal of defects in the generator kept in that
place. She also went there on 3-4 occasions and attended the "kirtan". One day, she
went there alongwith Lakhbir Kaur and Amarjeet Singh. Accused Ram Rati, Satpal
and Krishan told that they want to keep the two children with them and stated that
children belongs to them and they will be released, if a sum of Rs. 10 lacs is paid.
She told them that she is not in a position to pay Rs. 10 lacs. She pleaded to them,
but they turned her out after giving beatings to her. She came back to her house
and gave a ring to her husband. She alongwith her husband went to Mukundpur.
Her husband pleaded to the accused persons, but accused persons did not pay any
heed. They went to police, but no effective hearing was given to them.
Learned defence counsel has contended that PW5 cannot be relied upon
in any manner as she has admitted in her cross examination that she does not know
how to write in Hindi. She has further admitted that complaint Ex. PW5/A is in
Hindi and she cannot read the same. So, contents of complaint are not proved in
any manner. Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW5 does not
know that her daughter Lakhbir Kaur was married to accused Satpal. She has stated
voluntarily that if it is so, then she has no objection for the same. Learned defence
counsel has further contended that Charanjeet Kaur has admitted that her daughter
had refused to live with her and has stated that she will live with accused Satpal.
PW5 Charanjeet Kaur was again examined after the arrest of accused
Krishan Kumar. So, she has deposed in detail this time beside the facts as stated
earlier. She has now stated that she alongwith her daughter Lakhbir Kaur and son
Amarjeet Singh went to the temple to meet her son Gurpal. At that time, Mata
Nomita and accused Ram Rati, Krishan and Satpal were present there. They did not
allow them to see her son Gurpal. Rather, they called Lakhbir Kaur and Amarjeet
Singh inside the temple. She started quarreling with them. All the three accused and
Mata Nomita scuffled with her and refused to send her children by stating that the
SC No. 12/02 5/70
children belong to them. All the four accused including Mata Nomita demanded Rs.
10 lacs. She started weeping and left for his house and gave a ring to her husband.
At that time, her husband was in office. Her husband returned to the house
immediately from the office and thereafter they both went to temple in Mukundpur
and requested the accused persons to release their children as they were not having
any money to pay them, but they did not allow. Thereafter, they went to PS, but
none heard them.
Learned defence counsel has contended that earlier, PW5 Charanjeet
Kaur was examined before the court on 02/08/2005. At that time, she told the age of
Lakhbir Kaur as 24 years and of Amarjeet Singh as 22 years, whereas when she was
examined again on 17/11/07 after the arrest of accused Krishan Kumar, she has
deposed the age of Lakhbir Kaur as 21 years and of Amarjeet Singh as 17 years.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that she has been confronted in this
respect in the cross examination with Ex. PW5/A.
On the other hand, learned Addl. PP has contended that PW5 Charanjeet
Kaur has not been cross examined in any manner on the aspect that Lakhbir Kaur
and Amarjeet Singh were confined by all the accused persons alongwith Mata
Nomita in the temple and they did not release both the persons on the request of
PW5 Charanjeet Kaur. So, prosecution has been able to prove offence U/s. 365 IPC
against the accused persons.
PW6 is Swaran Singh. He is husband of PW5 Charanjeet Kaur. He has
stated that one day, accused Ram Rati visited his house and told him that at
Mukundpur, Nomita Mata was acting as Maa Kalyug Nashini and in case, he meet
her, then she will bless him. He was of religious mind. So, he alongwith his wife
reached the temple and accused Ram Rati met them. Accused Ram Rati asked him
to construct a roof and thereafter she introduced them to Mataji and told that he had
completed the roof. PW6 has further stated that he completed the work within a
week and did not charge anything because of his religious sentiments. During the
work, all his three children also used to come alongwith him. While he and his elder
SC No. 12/02 6/70
son Gurpal remain busy in the work, his daughter Lakhbir Kaur and son Amarjeet
Singh used to sit with Mata Nomita. After finishing the work, accused Ram Rati
told him that Lakhbir Kaur, Amarjeet Singh and Gurpal will stay in the ashram
only. Thereafter, he was not permitted to meet his children by accused Ram Rati.
Mata Nomita ordered accused Ram Rati not to permit him to meet his children. He
lodged the report with the police, but nothing happened.
Learned defence counsel has contended that PW6 Swaran Singh has also
admitted in the cross examination that Lakhbir Kaur is residing with accused Satpal
as his wife.
Again PW6 Swaran Singh was also reexamined after the arrest of
accused Krishan Kumar and he deposed the same facts as deposed earlier.
Learned defence counsel has contended that PW6 Swaran Singh has
stated that one day, he and his wife were not allowed to enter the temple. He asked
Gurpal to return to his house, but he refused to return saying that he will live at the
temple and further that Lakhbir Kaur and Amarjeet will also live with him at the
same temple. Accused Ram Rati refused to send their children stating that they were
their children. Even after, the accused persons did not allow them to enter the
temple as they used to visit the temple to see their children. Accused Ram Rati and
Krishan Kumar did not allow them to enter the temple. Thereafter, they went to PS
Adarsh Nagar, but no action was taken, which sows that the children were living
there at their own will and were not confined in any manner.
Learned defence counsel has contended that accused persons have been
falsely implicated int his case as accused persons had also got registered a case
against PW6 Swaran Singh i.e. case FIR No. 409/00, U/s. 365/34 of IPC at PS
Samay Pur Badli, copy of which is Ex. PW6/DA.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW6 Swaran Singh
does not remember the date since when his daughter Lakhbir Kaur is living
separately. PW6 Swaran Singh has further stated in the cross examination that when
his daughter was recovered, she had shown her inclination to live with the accused
SC No. 12/02 7/70
persons. Learned defence counsel has further contended that Lakhbir Kaur and
Amarjeet Singh were not secretly confined by the accused persons in any manner
nor they were kidnapped. They were major and conduct of PW5 Charanjeet Kaur
shows that PW5 and PW6 Swaran Singh have deposed against the accused persons
intentionally due to enmity as earlier in 2005, PW5 Charanjeet Kaur deposed the
age of Lakhbir Kaur and Amarjeet Singh as 28 years and 22 years, whereas when
she was again examination in the year 2007, then she reduced the age of both the
children and told the age of Lakhbir Kaur as 21 years and of Amarjeet Singh as 17
years just to show that they were not major and were under the influence of Mata
Nomita and the accused persons.
On the other hand, learned Addl. PP has contended that PW6 Swaran
Singh has also not been cross examined on the aspect that Gurpal Singh refused to
return and also told that he will live at the temple and further Lakhbir Kaur and
Amarjeet will also live with him in the temple, which shows that Lakhbir Kaur and
Amarjeet were staying in the temple at the instance of Gurpal Singh.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that from this part of the
deposition of PW6 Swaran Singh, it is clear that the accused persons did not use any
force to confine them nor all the three persons were confined in the temple by the
accused persons in any manner, but Gurpal Singh voluntarily resided in the temple
alongwith Lakhbir Kaur and Amarjeet Singh.
PW2 is Lakhbir Kaur. She has stated that she and her family used to visit
Maa Kalyug Nashini temple at Mukundpur and she has further stated that she and
her brother Gurpal had great respect for the temple. She has further stated that
Gurpal had stayed at the temple, at times overnight. She has further stated that
neither she nor her brother Gurpal were ever forcibly detained in the temple by any
person. She has further stated that she has married with accused Satpal at her own
free will. She was declared hostile and was cross examined by learned Addl. PP. In
the cross examination conducted by learned Addl. PP, she has stated that police
never recorded her statement nor she made any statement to the police. She has also
SC No. 12/02 8/70
denied that she and her brother were detained by the accused persons or her mother
Charanjeet Kaur was turned out by the accused persons from the temple.
Learned defence counsel has contended that PW2 Lakhbir Kaur has not
supported the case of prosecution regarding her forcible confinement in the temple
by the accused persons in any manner. So, she has contradicted with PW5
Charanjeet Kaur and PW6 Swaran Singh. Hence, PW5 Charanjeet Kaur and PW6
Swaran Singh cannot be believed in any manner.
On the other hand, learned Addl. PP has contended that PW2 Lakhbir
Kaur has married with accused Satpal. So, she has been won over by the accused
persons and she has deposed falsely to save the accused persons.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that even in the
complaint Ex. PW5/A, complainant Charanjeet Kaur has given the age of Gurpal
Singh, Lakhbir Kaur and Amarjeet Singh as 26, 23 and 19 years. The complaint was
lodged in September, 2001 and the incident is alleged to be of 1999. No date and
time has been given or deposed by PW5 or PW6 in any manner. Delay of two years
has not been explained.
PW15 is Amarjeet Singh. He has also stated that three years before 2001,
he alongwith his parents, brother and sister used to visit Kalyug Nashini Mandir in
Mukundpur. All the three accused and Mata Nomita used to meet them in the
temple. Accused persons used to perform "havan" in the Mandir and thereafter they
used to give "bhabhooti" as "prasad". Accused persons used to say to the visitors in
the temple that the world will come to an end in 2001 and only those will survive,
who will come under their umbrella. On hearing these words repeatedly, he came
under the influence of the accused persons and started visiting the temple regularly.
Then, they started "karsewa" in the temple and his father and brother Gurpal Singh
also done masonry work in installation of tin roof in the temple. Nomita Mata used
to call his brother Gurpal Singh in the temple and after sometime, they kept his
brother Gurpal permanently in the temple. He alongwith his mother went to the
temple to meet his brother and his mother was not allowed to enter inside the
SC No. 12/02 9/70
temple. Accused Krishan Kumar took him in a room in the temple. He told accused
Krishan Kumar that he wanted to meet his brother. Then, accused krishan Kumar
took him in the room of Nomita Mata, where all accused were sitting with his
brother. He met with his brother, but he was not allowed to talk with him.
Thereafter, they all asked him to stay in the temple and not to visit his parents again
and again. Her sister Lakhbir Kaur was also with him at that time. Accused persons
influenced him to stay in the temple, but he alongwith his sister and mother came
back to their house.
PW15 Amarjeet Singh has further stated that after 2/4 days, again he was
called by the accused persons in the temple. He alongwith his sister Lakhbir Kaur
went to the temple. Accused persons influenced their minds with their talking. He
was aged about 16-17 years at that time. Accused persons told them that they were
not ordinary souls and they both started residing there in the temple.
PW8 Dr. Seema Batra had examined X-ray plate of Neetu on 20/09/2001.
According to her opinion, she was more than 17 years, but was less than 19 years of
age at that time. She gave her X-ray report Ex. PW8/A.
Again Dr. Seema has been examined as PW10 in respect of examination
of Lakhbir Kaur. She has stated that on 17/09/2001, she examined Lakhbir Kaur and
she gave report Ex. PW10/A.
Learned defence counsel has contended that in the alleged history, it was
not disclosed that Lakhbir Kaur was kidnapped, abducted or confined or any force
was used or she was sexually intercoursed or raped, which shows that nothing had
happened with Lakhbir Kaur at the instance of accused persons.
Learned defence counsel has contended that from the deposition of
PW15 Amarjeet Singh, it is clear that Amarjeet Singh and Lakhbir Kaur were not
kidnapped or abducted by the accused persons in any manner nor they were secretly
confined in the temple. Learned defence counsel has further contended that from
further deposition of PW15 Amarjeet Singh, it is clear that he was never confined
SC No. 12/02 10/70
secretly in any manner.
Ld. Addl. PP has contended that according to the depositions of the
witnesses, assuming that both Lakhbir Kaur and Amarjeet Singh were not minor,
but they were compelled by force and also by deceitful means were induced to stay
in the ashram. So, offence U/s. 365 of IPC is proved against the accused persons.
In the complaint itself, complainant PW5 Smt. Charanjeet Kaur has
given the age of Lakhbir Kaur and Amarjeet Singh as 23 years and 19 years. Again,
she has given age of Lakhbir Kaur and Amarjeet Singh as 30 years and 28 years.
Incident is of year 2001 and she was examined in 2005. Even then, Lakhbir Kaur
was aged about 24 years and Amarjeet Singh was aged about 18 years. It is only in
2008, when PW5 Smt. Charanjeet Kaur was again recalled for examination after
arrest of accused Krishan Kumar, she deposed the age of Lakhbir Kaur as 21 years
and of Amarjeet Singh as 17 years. So, it is not certain what was the age of Lakhbir
Kaur and Amarjeet Singh at the time of incident. After the recovery of Lakhbir
Kaur, she was sent for medical examination and her bone age was also got
conducted to determine her age. According to the opinion of the doctor, her age
was greater than 19 years. This opinion was given on 20/09/2001. Date of birth
certificate of neither Lakhbir Kaur nor of Amarjeet Singh has been taken on record
during investigation. So, she might be more than 17 years of age or about 18 years.
After the recovery of Gurpal Singh and Amarjeet Singh, statements of
both were got recorded U/s. 164 of CrPC. In the statement Ex. PW15/DA, PW15
Amarjeet Singh has not stated anything against the accused persons. Rather, he
deposed against the police and his parents. Amarjeet Singh has stated before the
learned Metropolitan Magistrate in his statement Ex. PW15/DA that neither accused
persons asked him to leave his house nor they induced him. He resided with his
brother as he used to feel safe with his brother. At that time, his brother was
working as driver.
Learned defence counsel has contended that in fact as deposed by
Amarjeet Singh deposed before learned Metropolitan Magistrate as recorded in Ex.
SC No. 12/02 11/70
PW15/DA that after about eight months of the marriage of his brother Gurpal Singh
in the night of 09/09 at 10 p.m., his parents, parents of his sister in law i.e. wife of
his brother Gurpal Singh, his grandfather Gurdev Singh, Lala Kuldeep Singh,
Gurmeet Singh, mausi Dayalo alongwith other relative Niranjan Singh came in three
Tata Sumos alongwith police officials. Inspector Narender Chawla, Daya Chand,
Raghubir Singh and some others took them to crime branch officer, Dev Nagar, and
there asked his brother Gurpal Singh to take divorce from his wife Neetu Goyal, but
he did not agree. They also asked them to depose against the accused persons and
on their refusal, they were beaten. When they did not agree, then police officials
asked their relatives to take them to Punjab and further told that whosoever were
helping them, will be implicated falsely in a kidnapping case. Thereafter, both
brothers were taken to their native village near Maler Kotla, Punjab, in Tata Sumo
and there they confined them in two separate rooms. They were also beaten by the
relatives. Their place of residence were frequently changed. Their eyes were closed
with cloth piece and they were kept there for 1½ year. Thereafter, one month
before, both the brothers were brought to Delhi by the police and were left in
Bhagya Vihar. There, they took a room on rent and started residing there. They were
searching for Neetu, wife of Gurpal Singh. Two days before producing them in the
court, some police officials took them and dropped in PS Kanjhawala. Inspector
Narender Chawla also commented against Neetu, wife of his brother Gurpal Singh.
They were again asked to depose against the accused persons.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that from the statement
of Amarjeet Singh Ex.PW15/DA, it is clear that they were never forced or
compelled or were confined by deceitful means or were induced to leave their
parents house in any manner. So, offence U/s. 365 of IPC is not proved against the
accused persons.
On the other hand, learned Addl. PP has contended that PW15 has
specifically stated that all the accused had threatened them not to say anything
against them, otherwise they will kill them. They were under fear. So, he does not
SC No. 12/02 12/70
remember what statement was given by him before the concerned Judge. Accused
persons also got them free from the police and from there, they were shifted to a
rented room at Sultanpuri. There also, they were confined for quite a long time.
Learned Addl. PP has further contended that from this deposition of
PW15 Amarjeet Singh, it is clear that statement was given by PW15 under threat
from the accused persons.
On the other hand, learned defence counsel has contended that PW15
Amarjeet Singh was questioned by learned Metropolitan Magistrate at the time of
recording of statement as to whether he was giving statement at his own will or at
the instance of any other person and in answer to this question, PW15 Amarjeet
Singh told to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate at that time that police had
recorded his statement forcibly under fear and by giving beating to him and he was
also asked to depose the same facts before learned Metropolitan Magistrate, which
were recorded by the police. PW15 Amarjeet Singh further told to the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate that now he was not under any pressure and wants to give
statement at his own will. So, it cannot be said that statement Ex. PW15/DA was
given by PW15 Amarjeet Singh at that time under any pressure or under any
inducement from the side of accused persons.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that in the cross
examination, PW15 Amarjeet Singh has stated that the learned Judge had not asked
him as to whether he was giving his statement under pressure, which is patently
false in view of statement Ex. PW15/DA. Learned defence counsel has further
contended that PW15 Amarjeet Singh did not tell to learned Metropolitan
Magistrate that he was under pressure of accused persons nor he made any
complaint to any other authority that he gave his statement under the pressure of
accused persons.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that statement of PW15
Amarjeet Singh Ex. PW15/DA was recorded on 17/12/2002, whereas he has
appeared as witness before the court on 26/08/2009 and during these years not at
SC No. 12/02 13/70
single point of time, PW15 Amarjeet Singh pointed out that his statement recorded
U/s. 164 of CrPC was not correct and he deposed the facts under pressure of
accused persons. Learned defence counsel has further contended that all these facts
are fabricated and now under the influence of his parents, PW15 Amarjeet Singh is
intentionally deposing falsely against the accused persons due to enmity as accused
Ram Rati also got registered a case against the parents of PW15 Amarjeet Singh.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW15 Amarjeet
Singh has admitted in the cross examination that his statement was reduced into
writing by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, which was given by him, which was
recorded correctly as told by him. He has signed his statement. His statement was
not read over to him by learned Metropolitan Magistrate nor he read the same. He
has raised no objection at that time that it was not recorded correctly. Learned
defence counsel has further contended that in such circumstances, it cannot be said
that statement recorded U/s. 164 of CrPC was given under any pressure.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW15 Amarjeet
Singh has further deposed in his examination that accused persons arranged separate
accommodation for Satpal and his sister Lakhbir Kaur and a room for himself, his
brother and his wife Neetu Goyal in Nathupura. Learned defence counsel has
further contended that accused Satpal was married with Lakhbir Kaur. Learned
defence counsel has further contended that if accused persons had arranged separate
accommodation for accused Satpal and also for Gurpal Singh after their marriage,
then how it can be said that the accused persons were confining them or influenced
them or abducted them in any manner from their parents. Learned defence counsel
has further contended that PW2 Lakhbir Kaur has not supported the case of
prosecution in any manner and now as divorce has taken place between Gurpal
Singh and Neetu Goyal, so, PW15 Amarjeet Singh is deposing falsely against the
accused persons.
PW15 Amarjeet Singh has further stated that after some day, all the
accused came to their room in Nathupura and told that time has come to see their
SC No. 12/02 14/70
souls. Neetu was left behind in the room and he and his brother Gurpal Singh were
left at Vrindavan by the accused persons and they were asked to serve in the
ashram at Vrindavan. For one or two months, they served in the ashram. Thereafter,
they started thinking about coming back to Delhi, but the accused persons came to
know about their planning. Then, the accused persons took a room on rent in
Vrindavan and confined him and his brother in the said room. They gave them
beatings. They remained confined in the said room for 2/4 months under the accused
persons. On 27/11/2002, accused persons received a telephone call from Guru Mata
Ram Rati, who instructed the accused persons to bring both of them to Delhi. They
were brought back to Delhi by the accused persons on 02/12/2002 in a temple at
Bhagya Vihar, Madanpur Dabas, Delhi. Accused persons again took a room on rent
near the temple in Bhagya Vihar and they again confined them there. They both
were beaten by the accused persons. After some days, suddenly police came there
in the night and they both were removed to PS Kanjhawala. Their statement were
recorded by ASI Daya Chand, but they did not agree to sign their statements. On
the next day, they were produced before the court. All the accused present in the
court threatened them not to say anything against them, otherwise they will kill their
parents. They were under fear, so, he does not remember what statement was given
by them before the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate. Accused persons got them
free from the police on the basis of the statements and took them to Kewal Park,
Delhi. From there, they were shifted to a rented room in Sultanpuri. There also,they
were confined for quite long time. Accused persons demanded ransom of Rs. 10
lacs from their parents to release them. Thereafter, they were again shifted to some
other place. After sometime, accused persons changed their behaviour and started
talking with them politely and endured them to go back to their house and come
back with the money whatever was available in their house. They came back to
their house and after meeting their parents, they came to know about the truth.
Accused persons called them several times, but they stopped listening the telephone
calls.
SC No. 12/02 15/70
PW15 Amarjeet Singh has further stated that accused persons used to
give them intoxicated tables in "Prasad" and on refusal, they used to give them
beatings with belts.
PW15 Amarjeet Singh has further stated that whey they were being
taken by the police from PS Kanjhawala to Tis Hazari Court, in the way, accused
persons also threatened them not to depose against them in the court.
Learned Addl. PP has contended that from this part of the deposition of
PW15 Amarjeet Singh, it is clear that both PW14 Gurpal Singh and PW15 Amarjeet
Singh were confined by the accused persons at Vrindavan and at some other places
and ransom amount was also demanded for their release.
On the other hand, learned defence counsel has contended that again
PW15 Amarjeet Singh has deposed falsely. Firstly, he has stated that after recording
his statement U/s. 164 of CrPC, they were taken by the accused persons on the basis
of their statements to Kewal Park, Delhi, and in the cross examination, he has stated
that he does not remember whether he was dropped at Kewal Park by the learned
Judge in his vehicle because he had shown his fear to learned Judge that he might be
killed by his family members. Learned defence counsel has further contended that it
is also evident from statement Ex. PW15/DA, wherein it is recorded that when
PW15 Amarjeet Singh came out after making statement from the court, then he was
caught hold of by Daya Chand and Narender Chawla and on this, wife of Gurpal
Singh raised noise. So, they both were called by learned Judge inside the court.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that from the statement, it is also
clear that both Gurpal Singh and Amarjeet Singh were kidnapped by their parents
and parents of Neetu Goyal and they were having threat from police of crime
branch.
On the other hand, learned Addl. PP has contended that PW15 Amarjeet
Singh has stated in the cross examination that he does not remember the name of the
colony, but he was kept by the accused persons in a rented room, after recording his
statement in the court. At that time, his brother and his wife Neetu Goyal were also
SC No. 12/02 16/70
residing with him. Again, they were separated by the accused persons.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW15 Amarjeet
Singh has also been confronted with statements Ex. PW15/DA i.e. statement
recorded U/s. 161 and 164 of CrPC that they both were left at Vrindavan by all the
accused persons and were asked to serve in the Ashram for one or two months.
Thereafter, they started thinking about coming back to Delhi, but the accused
persons came to know about their planning. Then accused persons took a room on
rent at Vrindavan and confined both of them in the said room and gave them
beatings, where it is not so recorded.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW15 Amarjeet
Singh has also been confronted with Ex. PW15/DA that they remained confined in
the said room for 2/4 months under the accused persons. On 27/11/2002, accused
persons received a telephone call from Guru Mata Ram Rati, who instructed the
accused persons bring both of them to Delhi. Learned defence counsel has further
contended that these facts were not told by PW15 Amarjeet Singh to learned
Metropolitan Magistrate or to the police, when his statement was recorded.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW15 Amarjeet
Singh has stated that they were recovered on 02/12/2002, whereas according to the
police officials, both were recovered in the intervening night of 14.15/12/2002.
Learned defence counsel has contended that according to PW15 Amarjeet Singh, he
met with his parents after their recovery in 2002. Police had ensured a meeting
between his brother, himself and his parents after their recovery on 02/12/2002,
which is contrary to the case of prosecution. Learned defence counsel has further
contended that PW15 Amarjeet Singh has further stated in the cross examination
that he resided in a room arranged by the accused persons from 02/12/2002 to
15/12/2002after his recovery by the police. The accused persons were also staying with them in Bhagya Vihar during that period. Learned defence counsel has further contended that it is highly improbable that after recovery of Gurpal Singh and Amarjeet Singh on 02/12/2002, if it is so, they could have resided with the accused SC No. 12/02 17/70 persons till 15/12/2002. Learned defence counsel has further contended that a case was already registered on 04/09/2001 against the accused persons. So, if both were recovered on 02/12/2002, then certainly, they must had been produced before the court or their statements must had been recorded on 02/12/2002 or afterwards and not on 15/12/2002 and afterwards.
According to PW17 ASI Ashiq Ali, he was posted at PS Kanjhawala and on that day, he was on emergency duty from 8.00 p.m. to 8.00 a.m. On that day, on receipt of DD No. 20B, he alongwith Constable Lalitesh reached at Madanpur Mod near Bhagya Vihar. He tried to trace out Bimla and Ram Rati. After sometime, Bimla and Ram Rati met them. Accused Ram Rati told that she was in judicial custody in a kidnapping case of Amarjeet and Gurpal. She also produced Amarjeet and Gurpal before them. She also told that her son was in judicial custody in kidnapping case of Amarjeet and Gurpal.
PW17 has further stated that he informed the concerned police station Samay Pur Badli, who informed that case was transferred to Crime Branch, Dev Nagar. He informed office of Crime Branch, Dev Nagar. After sometime, concerned IO came there alongwith staff and he handed over Amarjeet and Gurpal to them. His statement was recorded by the IO.
In the cross examination, PW17 ASI Ashiq Ali has stated that he handed over both Gurpal And Amarjeet to the Crime Branch officer at the spot and he did not prepare any document because the case was of Crime Branch.
Learned defence counsel has contended that even this part of the case of prosecution is also false as PW4 Bimla has not supported the case of prosecution in any manner that a call was made by accused Ram Rati and herself about the presence of Gurpal Singh and Amarjeet Singh in Bhagya Vihar.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that statement of Amarjeet Singh was recorded U/s. 161 of CrPC by ASI Daya Chand on 15/12/2002, which was against the accused persons and statement of Amarjeet Singh U/s. 164 CrPC was recorded on 17/12/2002, which was in favour of accused persons.
SC No. 12/02 18/70According to the application of ASI Daya Chand in this respect, both Gurpal Singh and Amarjeet Singh were produced before the court and they were directed to be produced on 17/12/2002 at 2.00 p.m. for recording their statements, but the parents of boy and girl were present, so, statement of Gurpal Singh was recorded on 15/12/2002 itself, wherein Gurpal did not depose anything against the accused persons and rather deposed against the police and his parents. So was deposed by PW15 Amarjeet Singh on 17/12/2002 and from 14/12/2002 till 17/12/2002, both Gurpal Singh and Amarjeet Singh were not in the custody of the accused persons nor under the influence of the accused persons. It has not been deposed either by Gurpal Singh and Amarjeet Singh themselves or by other witness as to whether from 15/12/2002 to 17/12/2002, where both resided, but certainly, they were not with the accused persons. So, it cannot be said that while making statement U/s. 164 of CrPC, both Gurpal Singh and Amarjeet Singh were under the influence of the accused persons.
Even the case of Amarjeet Singh is more strange because according to statement recorded U/s. 161 CRPC on 15/12/2002, he supported the case of prosecution and on 17/12/2002, he deposed in favour of the accused persons before learned Metropolitan Magistrate. So, PW15 Amarjeet Singh cannot be believed in any manner. Learned defence counsel has further contended that the witness has made improvements regarding his stay at different places and also his confinement at Vrindavan for 1-2 months, which has neither been told in his statement U/s. 161 CrPC nor in the statement recorded U/s. 164 of CrPC. The improvements are material and have been deposed by the witness after about seven years to implicate the accused persons in this case.
PW14 is Gurpal Singh. He has stated that about 10 years before, he and his parents used to visit Mata Nomita Mandir, Mukundpur. Accused Ram Rati used to give them "Prasad" and she influenced them with her words. Accused Ram Rati was known as Guru Mata in the Mandir. Mata Nomita was also known as Mata Vaishno Devi. Accused Satpal was known as Bhairon Baba. Accused Krishan SC No. 12/02 19/70 Kumar was known as Hanuman. Accused Satpal is son of accused Ram Rati. Under the influence of these accused persons, he and his father started "Karsewa" in the mandir and constructed the roof of the Mandir as he and his father both used to work as mason. Due to more acquaintance with the accused persons, they came to know about their financial status and at the instance of accused persons, he alongwith his brother Amarjeet Singh and sister Lakhbir Kaur started residing in the mandir.
PW14 has further stated that one day, his parents came to pick-up him from Mandir, but the accused persons asked him to call the police on telephone. Police came at the spot and as he was major, so, the police advised his parents that being major, he was at liberty to reside anywhere. PW14 has further stated that one Maya Goyal alongwith her daughter Neetu also used to visit the Mandir and accused persons also influenced them. Neetu also started residing in the mandir. He was married with Neetu against his wishes by the accused persons at the instance of Mata Nomita. His sister Lakhbir Kaur was married to accused Satpal against her wishes at the instance of Mata Nomita.
PW14 has further stated that they were confined by the accused persons and were kept at different places. Accused persons at the instance of Mata Nomita also threatened and demanded money from his parents. Accused persons used to tie his hands and feet with the help of rope. Accused persons took him, his brother Amarjeet Singh, his sister Lakhbir Kaur and wife Neetu Goyal in a room in Nathupura and confined them there. Accused persons also took them to Vrindavan in a Ashram and they were kept there. Accused persons also used to give them drugs in "Prasad" and sometimes in the form of tablets.
PW14 has further stated that he came to know that his parents had lodged a case against the accused persons for kidnapping. Accused persons were demanding Rs. 10 lacs from his parents for release of him, his brother and sister. Thereafter, he, his brother and sister were removed by the accused persons to Bhagya Vihar near Sultanpuri, Delhi. Police came there and they were removed to SC No. 12/02 20/70 Kanjhawala police station. From there, they were taken to Crime Branch, Dev Nagar, where ASI Daya Chand recorded their statements. They gave their statements against their parents as they were already threatened by the accused persons that if they will gave statement against them, they will kill their parents.
PW14 has identified his statement recorded U/s. 164 of CrPC as Ex. PW14/A and has stated that he gave this statement under threat of the accused persons. Thereafter, some proceedings were done and they were released. They came back to their house. PW14 has further stated that even now, accused persons are defaming him and his sister and pressurising them not to depose against them in the court.
Leaned defence counsel has contended that PW14 Gurpal Singh has deposed the same facts as of PW15 Amarjeet Singh and one fact he has made clear is that after recording their statements, they were released and they came back to their house. So, it is clear that according to the case of prosecution, they were recovered on 14/12/2002 and were produced before the court on 15/12/2002. Statement of Amarjeet Singh was recorded U/s. 161 of CrPC, wherein he supported the case of prosecution and deposed against the accused persons. Statement recorded U/s. 161 of CrPC of Gurpal Singh is also on the same lines, but before the court, both Gurpal Singh and Amarjeet Singh deposed against their parents and the police on 15/12/2002 and 17/12/2002 and at that time, they were residing in their house, which shows that they made true averments before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate recorded on 15/12/2002 and 17/12/2002.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW14 Gurpal Singh and PW15 Amarjeet Singh have also contradicted each other. PW15 Amarjeet Singh has nowhere stated that they were confined by the accused persons except about their stay at Vrindavan, whereas PW14 Gurpal Singh has stated that they were confined by the accused persons. PW14 was also tied with rope, whereas it has not been stated so by PW15 Amarjeet Singh in any manner. Rather, PW15 Amarjeet Singh has stated that room was arranged by the accused persons at Nathupura for SC No. 12/02 21/70 their residence.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that both PW14 Gurpal Singh and PW15 Amarjeet Singh have also stated that accused persons also used to give them drugs in "Prasad" and also in the form of tablets. Learned defence counsel has further contended that accused persons have not been charged for offence U/s. 328 of IPC in any manner. So, the depositions of both these witnesses in this respect is of no value and not helpful to the prosecution. Rather, the same shows the conduct of both the witnesses as neither they have stated so in their statements U/s. 161 CrPC nor in their statements recorded U/s. 164 of CrPC.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that even both have not stated in their statements recorded U/s. 161 CrPC that they were confined forcibly in a ashram at Vrindavan and PW15 Amarjeet Singh has been confronted with his statement Ex. PW15/DA in this respect from portion A to A1, where it is recorded that they served in a ashram at Vrindavan voluntarily without any selfishness and they were called back on 02/12/2002 at Bhagya Vihar Mandir, where they stayed in a rented room.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that according to the statement of PW15 Amarjeet Singh recorded U/s. 161 of CrPC, when the accused persons did not pay any attention towards them, they started searching the work and on seeing this, accused Ram Rati with the help of Bimla informed the police at 100 number and got apprehended them in PS Kanjhawala.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that according to the statements recorded U/s. 161 CrPC of both the witnesses, they felt that accused persons had changed their minds, so, they started feeling the accused persons as their well wishers and left their house, but now, they want to reside with their parents. Learned defence counsel has further contended that both PW14 Gurpal Singh and PW15 Amarjeet Singh have made improvements, while deposing before the court, even from their statements recorded U/s. 161 CrPC, with which they have been confronted and on the same day and just after two days, both gave entirely SC No. 12/02 22/70 different statements before learned Metropolitan Magistrate U/s. 164 of CrPC in favour of the accused persons. Learned defence counsel has further contended that prosecution has not been able to brought on record that during the period from 14/12/2002 to 17/12/2002, both witnesses were under the influence of the accused persons or were under the threat of the accused persons in any manner.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that merely depositions of the witnesses that they gave statements U/s. 164 CrPC under threat and pressure of accused persons, same has not been substantiated in any manner by the prosecution as according to PW14 Gurpal Singh, during that period, they were residing with their parents. Learned defence counsel has further contended that from the depositions of the witnesses, it is clear that accused persons neither used any force to compel or used any deceitful means or induced both the witnesses and Lakhbir Kaur to leave their house and to start residing in the temple.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW15 Amarjeet Singh has also admitted that after the marriage of accused Satpal and his brother Gurpal Singh with Lakhbir Kaur and Neetu Goyal respectively, separate rooms were arranged for them for their residence and PW15 Amarjeet Singh started residing with his brother, which shows that they were not compelled or forced in any manner nor were confined in any manner. Learned defence counsel has further contended that the improvements made by both the witnesses are material. So, both the witnesses cannot be believed in any manner. Learned defence counsel has further contended that Lakhbir Kaur has not supported the case of prosecution. So, she has contradicted all these facts with PW14 Gurpal Singh and PW15 Amarjeet Singh.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW14 Gurpal Singh has stated in the cross examination that he had stayed at the temple in Mukundpur for one and half year. He used to do all the works, which were given to him by accused persons from time to time. Sometimes, he used to sit in the shop and sometimes, he used to serve the devotees. Learned defence counsel has further SC No. 12/02 23/70 contended that PW14 Gurpal has further admitted that many public persons used to visit the temple, but after their coming in the temple, his parents were barred to visit the temple. Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW14 Gurpal Singh has admitted that he never lodged any complaint to any person that he was detained in the temple forcibly, which shows that he and his brother were residing in the temple at their own will and were not forcibly detained by the accused persons in any manner. Learned defence counsel has further contended that even otherwise, no such complaint was made by PW14 Gurpal Singh and PW15 Amarjeet Singh during the period and only the allegations came from their mouth after lodging complaint by their mother.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW14 Gurpal Singh married with Neetu and enjoyed the married life. If it was against his wishes, then why he did not take any steps or even broke the marriage at that time. Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW14 Gurpal Singh and PW15 Amarjeet Singh were not confined in any manner nor were locked up in any manner. So, if they were feeling anything adverse in their minds against the accused persons, then they could have easily slipped from the temple and could have gone to their parental house. Nobody detained them in the temple forcibly.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW14 Gurpal Singh has admitted that he resided with his wife Neetu as husband around 7/8 months and obtained divorce with mutual consent at Tis Hazari Courts. Learned defence counsel has further contended that during these 7/8 months, no complaint was given by PW14 Gurpal Singh to anyone that he was forcibly married with Neetu at the instance of accused persons. Learned defence counsel has further contended that even brother of Gurpal Singh i.e. PW15 Amarjeet Singh was a witness to the marriage. Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW14 Gurpal Singh has admitted that he has not stated anything against his parents in the statement recorded U/s. 161 CrPC dated 15/12/2002, whereas he gave statement against his parents under the pressure of accused persons recorded U/s. 164 of CrPC. Learned SC No. 12/02 24/70 defence counsel has further contended that PW14 Gurpal Singh has admitted that on 15/12/2002, he was not under the pressure of accused persons. Learned defence counsel has further contended that both statements U/s. 161 CrPC and 164 of CrPC were recorded of Gurpal Singh on 15/12/2002 itself, which shows that when statement U/s. 164 of CrPC was recorded, he was not under the pressure of accused persons. Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW14 Gurpal Singh has also stated that he was recovered from Bhagya Vihar, Delhi, on 02/12/2002, which is contrary to the case of prosecution, wherein it has been alleged that both were recovered on the intervening night of 14.15/12/2002. Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW14 Gurpal Singh has also not made it clear as of other witness as to where he stayed in between 02/12/2002 to 15/12/2002.
On the other hand, learned Addl. PP has contended that PW14 Gurpal Singh has made it clear that firstly his statement U/s. 161 CrPC was recorded on 15/12/2002 and thereafter his statement got recorded U/s. 164 of CrPC.
On the other hand, learned defence counsel has contended that parents of PW14 Gurpal Singh were present in the Crime Branch Office and they were also present in Tis Hazari Courts and in the statement recorded U/s. 161 CrPC, PW14 Gurpal Singh has deposed against the accused persons, wherein in statement U/s. 16 4 of CrPC , PW14 Gurpal Singh has deposed against his parents and at both the time, his parents were present, which shows that he was not under the pressure of accused persons in any manner.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW14 Gurpal Singh has introduced a new story that accused persons did not talk to him directly in Tis Hazari Courts, but they told his wife Neetu that if he will depose against them, then they will kill his parents. This fact was told to him by his wife Neetu.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that again this witness has not stated to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate that he was under the pressure of accused persons, while his statement was recorded U/s. 164 or CrPC. So, plea of witness that he gave statement U/s. 164 of CrPC under the pressure of accused SC No. 12/02 25/70 persons is not acceptable and the same is major improvement, which discard the testimony of witness and he cannot be relied upon in any manner. Learned defence counsel has further contended that even PW14 Gurpal Singh did not tell this fact to learned Metropolitan Magistrate that accused persons conveyed threat to kill his parents through his wife Neetu. Learned defence counsel has further contended that according to PW14 Gurpal Singh, his statement was read over to him by learned Metropolitan Magistrate before he signed the same. So, it cannot be said that the contents of the statement were not within the knowledge of the witness, but now, with ulterior motive and due to enmity as a case has been registered at the instance of accused Ram Rati against the parents of the witness, he has twisted the facts and has deposed falsely.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that after recorded of statement U/s. 164 of CrPC, PW14 Gurpal Singh reached at Azadpur, Delhi. He did not go to his parents. Accused Ram Rati was present there. PW14 Gurpal Singh did not try to meet his parents after recording of his statement U/s. 164 of CrPC, which shows that he was not confined forcibly or was detained by the accused persons in any manner. Had it been so, then after recording his statement U/s. 164 of CrPC, the witness could have gone with his parents or could have gone at any other place, but he again joined the accused persons.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that even thereafter, PW14 Gurpal Singh resided with Neetu for sometime and used to work at that time. The child aborted after two months of pregnancy of his wife as she became ill. He used to take his wife to hospital. During those days or later on, PW14 Gurpal Singh did not point out or made any complaint that his statement recorded U/s. 164 of CrPC was given by him under the pressure of the accused persons. Learned defence counsel has further contended that even PW14 Gurpal Singh also got issued a public notice that he had strained his relations his parents, copy of which is Mark D2 and another copy is D3. Learned defence counsel has further contended that even PW14 Gurpal Singh lodged a complaint dated 06/12/99, but again he has SC No. 12/02 26/70 turned from his complaint and has stated that it was given at the instance of accused persons, copy of which is Mark D4. PW1 Neetu has nowhere stated that she conveyed the threat given by accused persons to PW14 Gurpal Singh before recording of his statement U/s. 164 of CrPC.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that both these witnesses i.e. PW14 Gurpal Singh and PW15 Amarjeet Singh have twisted the facts and have made material improvements, which are contrary to the facts and record to implicate the accused persons. So, they cannot be believed in any manner.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW14 Gurpal Singh has also been confronted with his statement Ex. PW14/D7 recorded U/s. 161 CrPC with certain facts, which shows that he has made material improvements. Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW14 Gurpal Singh has been confronted with the facts that one day, his parents came to him to take him from the temple, but accused persons asked him to call the police; that Neetu also resided in Mandir; that his marriage was performed with Neetu against his consent; that accused persons threatened and demanded money from his parents and also threatened at the instance of Mata Nomita; that accused persons used to tie his hands and feet with rope; that accused persons used to give him drugs in "Prasad" and also sometimes in the form of tablets and that accused persons also demanded Rs. 10 lac from his parents to release himself, his brother and sister. Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW14 Gurpal Singh and PW15 Amarjeet Singh have deposed falsely against the accused persons because PW14 Gurpal Singh, as he has stated so, is residing for the last about four years with his parents and even during that period, PW14 Gurpal Singh did not give any complaint that he made statement U/s. 164 of CrPC against his parents under the pressure of accused persons.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW14 Gurpal Singh has admitted that accused Ram Rati has filed a case against his father. Learned defence counsel has further contended that it shows that he has deposed falsely against the accused persons due to enmity.
SC No. 12/02 27/70PW1 is Neetu, wife of Gurpal Singh. She has stated that in January, 2000, she left her house as she was being harassed by her mother and her parents. She had also filed a petition in Hon'ble High Court of Delhi against her parents. Her custody was handed over to NGO Prayas by the Hon'ble High Court. PW1 has further stated that she knows both the accused. Accused Ram Rati was a Pujarin in a temple of Mukundpur, where her parents used to visit. Accused Satpal is the husband of sister of her husband. PW1 has further stated that none of the accused ever committing wrong act with her or confined her anywhere at any point of time. Accused persons never forced her to marry Gurpal. She was married with Gupal Singh with her own sweet will and residing with him happily.
As PW1 Neetu has not supported the case of prosecution. So, she has been cross examined by learned Addl. PP, but even then, she has not supported the case of prosecution. She has stated in the cross examination that she made statement to the police that she was never kidnapped by anybody. She used to visit Kalyug Nashini Temple at Mukundpur. She was never kept by any of the accused with the help of Krishan Kumar at the temple nor her brother Sachin was kept at the mandir. She has been confronted with her statement Mark X, but even then, she has not supported the case of prosecution. She has denied the suggestion that ransom was demanded by the accused persons from her parents. She has also denied the fact that one year thereafter, she again went to temple and was again confined. She has also denied the suggestion that accused persons persuaded or enticed her to marry with Gurpal. She has also denied the suggestion that Gurpal and his sister were detained and were kept by the accused persons in the temple.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that in view of statement of PW1 Neetu, it is clear that PW14 Gurpal Singh and PW15 Amarjeet Singh have deposed falsely against the accused persons due to enmity.
PW13 is Maya Goyal. She has stated that in the year 98-99, she alongwith her husband and children used to go to temple at Mukundpur of Mata Vaishno and Mata Kalyug Nashini used to give religious discourse there. They used SC No. 12/02 28/70 to feel good on hearing her. Accused Ram Rati also used to give same kind of religious discourse. Once, she got done "jagran" at her house. In that "Jagran", accused Ram Rati, Mata Kalyug Nashini and one Kishan, who was also part of their group had also participated. Her daughter Neetu, who was aged about 16 years and her son Sachin, who was aged about 15 years, found missing from their house. Their neighbours told them about missing of children. She was told that Mata Kalyug Nashini, accused Ram Rati, Advocate R.L. Dhingra and his daughter Monika Dhingra had taken their children. The children went missing on 01/02/2000 and did not return home for about two months. Then, they lodged FIR at Sahibabad police station, Ghaziabad (U.P.). On their FIR, Advocate R.L. Dhingra was arrested. Subsequently her children returned home at their own after they had a compromise in that case with all the above mentioned persons. Accused Ram Rati was not accused in that case, which they had got registered at Sahibabad, U.P. They did not make any inquiry from the children as to where they had been for about two months.
PW13 Maya Goyal has also not supported the case of prosecution. So, she has been cross examined by learned Addl. PP. In the cross examination, she has stated that she did not tell to the police in her statement U/s. 161 of CrPC that accused Ram Rati, Krishan Kumar, Satpal and Advocate R.L. Dhingra were misguiding her children and tutoring them against the parents. She has further stated that she does not remember whether her daughter was again kidnapped by the accused persons after she had been earlier recovered. She has further stated that she does not recollect, if she had told to the police that her children were asked to stay in the house of accused Ram Rati. She has further stated that she does not remember whether she had told to the police that accused persons used to commit such type of offence with other persons or used to demand ransom from other persons in such kind of cases. She has further stated that she does not remember, if she had told to the police that all the accused persons demanded ransom for the kidnapping of her children.
Learned defence counsel has contended that PW13 Maya Goyal has SC No. 12/02 29/70 denied the suggestion that she is deliberately saying that she does not remember the fact, although she remembers the facts very well. Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW13 has also denied the suggestion that she had gone to take back her children, but they refused to come back with her.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that in view of the deposition and cross of PW13 Maya Goyal, she is not helpful to the case of prosecution in any manner and she has not deposed against the accused in any respect. Rather, she has been cross examined in respect of the case,which she got registered in Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, U.P. Learned defence counsel has further contended that even PW13 has nowhere deposed about marriage of Neetu with Gurpal Singh nor there is any charge against the accused persons regarding kidnapping or confinement of Neetu in the temple or anywhere else. Learned defence counsel has further contended that charge is in respect of Lakhbir Kaur and Amarjeet Singh only.
PW18 is Jagdish Gupta. He has stated that he is registered owner of Maruti Van bearing registration No. DID-5687. Same was attached by him with Pinky Tour and Travellers, Indra Market, Adarsh Nagar. Gurpal was driver of car and he used to visit Pinky Tour and Travellers. He used to meet him at Pinky Tour and Travellers. PW18 has further stated that in the year 2001, Gurpal Singh alongwith his wife Neetu came at Pinky Tour and Travellers, Adarsh Nagar. On 14/03/2002, he had seen Gurpal alongwith his brother Amarjeet at Adarsh Nagar. He went to Crime Branch, Dev Nagar and informed the police as he had seen posters regarding Amarjeet and Gurpal at Adarsh Nagar Bus Stand regarding their missing.
Learned defence counsel has contended that from the statement of PW18 Jagdish, it is clear that neither Gurpal Singh nor Amarjeet Singh were confined or forcibly compelled to stay in the Ashram/temple, as on 14/03/2002, they were seen by PW18 Jagdish in the area of Adarsh Nagar. He informed the Crime Branch, Dev Nagar in this respect.
SC No. 12/02 30/70PW18 Jagdish Gupta has stated in the cross examination that his statement was recorded by ASI Daya Chand. This statement is Ex. PW18/DA. It is signed by the witness. It was recorded on 14/03/2002. In the cross examination, PW18 Jagdish Gupta has further stated that he met with Amarjeet only once, when he was with Gurpal on 14/03/2002 and on that day, both were not wearing their turbans.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW18 Jagdish Gupta has stated in the cross examination that he told to the police that Amarjeet Singh and Gurpal Singh were not missing and they both used to roam here and there. Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW18 Jagdish Gupta has admitted that he gave his statement in writing, which is Ex. PW18/DA. Learned defence counsel has further contended that from the examination of PW18 Jagdish Gupta, who is an independent witness, it is clear that he is not known to the accused persons, rather is known to PW14 Gurpal Singh and it has also come in the statement of PW15 Amarjeet Singh U/s. 164 CrPC that PW14 Gurpal Singh was working as a driver. So, PW18 Jagdish Gupta cannot be disbelieved in any manner.
To prove offence U/s. 365 of IPC against the accused person regarding kidnapping of Amarjeet Singh and Lakhbir Singh, prosecution has to prove that accused persons took or induced any minor under 16 years of age, if a male or under 18years, if a female, out of the keeping of lawful guardian of such minor without the consent of such guardian is said to kidnap such minor or person from lawful guardianship.
According to Section 362 of IPC, abduction means whosoever by force compels, or by any deceitful means induces, any person to go from any place, is said to abduct that person.
So, firstly, we have to see what was the age of Lakhbir Kaur and Amarjeet Singh at the time of incident. PW5 Charanjeet Kaur has given the age of Lakhbir Kaur and Amarajeet Singh as 23 years and 19 years in complaint Ex. PW5/A dated 04/09/2001, whereas before the court firstly when she was examined SC No. 12/02 31/70 on 02/08/2005, she gave age of Lakhbir Kaur as 24 years and of Amarjeet Singh as 22 years. She was again examined after arrest of accused Krishan Kumar (PO) on 17/11/07. She has deposed the aged of Lakhbir Kaur as 21 years and of Amarjeet Singh as 17 years.
Lakhbir Kaur has not deposed her age before the court in any manner. However, when she was examined on 01/12/2004, she gave her age as 27 years. She has not been cross examined by learned Addl. PP in any manner that at the time of incident, she was minor. PW10 Dr. Seema Jain also examined Lakhbir Kaur regarding her bone age and gave report dated 20/09/2001. According to her opinion, she was more than 19 years. PW2 Lakhbir Kaur has admitted in the cross examination that she had filed a writ petition in Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, copy of which is Ex. PW2/D1. According to Ex. PW2/D1, this writ petition bearing No. 1255/01, she has mentioned her date of birth as 15/03/77. According to her statement, she has given her age before the Court as 27 years in 2004, which shows that in 2001, she was aged about 23 years and complainant PW5 Charanjeet Kaur had rightly given the age of Lakhbir Kaur in complaint Ex. PW5/A as 23 years on 04/09/2001 , but later on, she has made improvements in this respect to show that at the time of incident, Lakhbir Kaur and Amarjeet Singh both were minor.
PW15 Amarjeet Singh has given his age before learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 17/12/2002 during his statement recorded U/s. 164 of CrPC as 22 years. This fact has not been disputed in any manner nor witness has stated that he gave his age as 22 years before learned Metropolitan Magistrate under the pressure of the accused persons. So, on 04/09/2001, he was about 21 years. Accordingly, in the year 2001, Lakhbir Kaur was aged about 24 yeas and Amarjeet Singh was aged about 21 years. The incident has spread in between two years i.e. from September 1999 to September 2001 and even in September 1999, Lakhbir Kaur was aged about 22 years and Amarjeet Singh was aged about 19 years. No other evidence has been brought on record to prove the age of Lakhbir Kaur and Amarjeet Singh. So, from the depositions of the witnesses and the documents proved on record, age of Lakhbir SC No. 12/02 32/70 Kaur was about 22 years in 1999 and of Amarjeet Singh was 19 years in the year 1999. In such circumstances, they were not minor and consent of guardian was not required in any manner.
Now, it has to be seen, whether Lakhbir Kaur and Amarjeet Singh were abducted by the accused persons.
To prove abduction, it has to be proved by the prosecution that accused persons used force to compel or used deceitful means induced, any person to go from any place.
The complaint and deposition of PW5 Charanjeet Kaur is that they used to go to the temple of Maa Kalyug Nashini. Her husband and her son constructed a tin roof over the ashram, but did not charge anything. After sometime, her son Gurpal started residing there. One day, she went there alongwith Lakhbir Kaur and Amarjeet Singh. All the three accused told that they want to keep the two children with them and stated that children belongs to them and they will be released, if a sum of Rs. 10 lacs is paid, which shows that accused persons did not use any deceitful means or induced Lakhbir Kaur or Amarjeet Singh. It has not been stated so by PW5 Charanjeet Kaur that accused persons used any deceitful means or induced Lakhbir Kaur and Amarjeet Singh to stay in the temple. Both were major at that time.
PW2 Lakhbir Kaur has not supported the case of the prosecution that accused persons used any force or compelled her to stay in the temple or in the ashram or accused persons used any deceitful means or induced her to stay in the temple. PW15 Amarjeet Singh has stated that he along with his sister Lakhbir Kaur went to the temple. Accused persons influenced their minds with their talking. He was aged about 16-17 years at that time. They both started residing there in the temple. From this part of the deposition of PW15 Amarjeet Singh, it is also clear that they were not forced nor were compelled to start residing in the temple. They were influenced only, but it is not explained by PW15 Amarjeet Singh as to in what manner, they were influenced and what accused persons asked them to do under SC No. 12/02 33/70 their influence. It can also not be said that accused persons used any deceitful means and induced PW15 Amarjeet Singh to start residing in the temple.
PW15 Amarjeet Singh was recovered in the intervening night of 14.15/12/2002. He gave his statement to the police U/s. 161 CrPC, in which, he told that his mind was changed by the accused persons. So, he started thinking the accused persons as his well wishers and at their instance, he left his house, but now, he wants to reside with his parents. On 17/12/2002, statement of PW15 Amarjeet Singh was recorded U/s. 164 of CrPC, wherein he totally turnout out from his previous statement and gave statement against the police and his parents and did not allege anything against the accused persons, but before the court, while deposing as PW15, Amarjeet Singh has stated that he gave statement U/s. 164 of CrPC under the pressure of the accused persons and he has made lot of improvements even from his statement recorded U/s. 161 of CrPC on 15/12/2002. Similar is the position of PW14 Gurpal Singh, brother of PW15 Amarjeet Singh. He gave similar statement U/s. 161 of CrPC on 15/12/2002. His statement was recorded on 164 of CrPC on 15/12/2002 itself and again he has made material improvements, while deposing as PW14 and has added more incriminating facts against the accused persons, which were not stated by both the witnesses either to the police or to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in their statements.
On the other hand, PW5 Charanjeet Kaur and PW6 Swaran Singh have stated that they were not allowed to enter in the temple. He asked Gurpal Singh to return to his house, but he refused to return saying that he will live at the temple and further that Lakhbir Kaur and Amarjeet will also live with him in the temple, which shows that Gurpal Singh, Amarjeet Singh and Lakhbir Kaur started residing in the temple at their own free will being major and if PW5 Charanjeet Kaur and PW6 Swaran Singh were not allowed to enter the temple, then it does not mean that Gurpal Singh, Lakhbir Kaur and Amarjeet Singh were detained there forcibly or were compelled to reside there. It is also not proved from the depositions of the witnesses that PW2 Lakhbir Kaur, PW14 Gurpal Singh and PW15 Amarjeet Singh SC No. 12/02 34/70 were induced to stay in the temple by the accused persons.
PW14 Gurpal Singh has stated in the cross examination that he stayed in the temple in Mukundupur for one and a half year. He used to do all the work,which was given by the accused persons. Sometimes, he used to sit in the shop and sometimes, he used to serve the devotees, which shows that he was doing "Karsewa" at his own free will being major, in the temple. He might have been influenced by the accused persons, but that was for the purpose of doing "Karsewa" only and the accused persons did not deceitfully induced them to stay in the temple in any manner. It has also not come in the evidence of any witness that accused persons were keeping any watch on all these three persons i.e. Lakhbir Kaur, Gurpal Singh and Amarjeet Singh and their movements were restricted. Many public persons used to visit in the temple and if there was such thing, then they could have made a complaint to the visitors.
During this period, PW14 Gurpal Singh was married with one Neetu and Lakhbir Kaur was married with accused Satpal and they started residing separately by taking rooms on rent each in Nathupura. PW15 Amarjeet Singh also started residing with PW14 Amarjeet Singh in Nathupura, which shows that they were residing at their own free will and Gurpal Singh was enjoying his married life.
According to the writ filed by Neetu, wife of Gurpal Singh, their marriage took place on 21/12/2000. If these persons were having any feeling that their minds were changed by the accused persons by influencing them, then they could have slipped away from Nathupura or from the temple at any moment. The conduct of both PW14 Gurpal Singh and PW15 Amarjeet Singh spreading in two years fortify the fact that they were not willing to reside with their parents. PW14 Amarjeet Singh has admitted that he resided with his wife as husband around seven/eight months. At least during that time, he was not under the influence of the accused persons. So, he could have slipped away from Nathupura and could have joined the company of his parents alongwith his wife Neetu and his brother PW15 Amarjeet Singh.
SC No. 12/02 35/70From the deposition of PW18 Jagdish Gupta, it is also proved that both PW14 Gurpal Singh and PW15 Amarjeet Singh used to roam here and there and they were seen by PW18 Jagdish Gupta in the area of Adarsh Nagar on 14/03/2002. He visited the office of Crime Branch, Dev Nagar and informed that both PW14 and PW15 were not missing because he has seen their posters regarding their missing at the bus stand of Adarsh Nagar. His statement was recorded and he signed the same. PW18 is an independent witness. He was known to PW14 Gurpal Singh being attached with the same tour and travel agency, where Gurpal Singh was working as driver. So, he has no motive to depose falsely in any manner.
Both PW14 Gurpal Singh and PW15 Amarjeet Singh have stated that they had done "Karsewa" in ashram without any selfishness in their statements recorded U/s. 161 CrPC, but later on before the court, they have turned out from their statements and have stated that they were forcibly detained in Vrindavan. PW14 Gurpal Singh has stated that his hands and feet were tied with the help of rope and at the instance of accused Ram Rati, they were brought back to Delhi on 02/12/2002.
According to the case of prosecution, both PW14 Gurpal Singh and PW15 Amarjeet Singh were recovered in the intervening night of 14.15/12/2002, which shows that both PW14 and PW15 have deposed falsely that they came to Delhi on 02/12/2002. Both PW14 and PW15 have not been able to depose as to where they resided from 02/12/2002 till the intervening night of 14.15/12/2002.
In the writ filed by Neetu, wife of PW14 Gurpal Singh, she had alleged that PW14 and PW15 were lifted by the police on 14.15/12/2002. In the criminal writ No. 1261/04 filed by Neetu, nowhere she has made any allegations that PW14 and PW1 were taken to Vrindavan and they stayed there and had done some service in the ashram. Rather, she alleged that on 09/09/2001 at about 10 p.m., parents of Gurpal Singh and Amarjeet Singh alongwith some persons took them in some vehicles and ran away. PW1 Neetu has also not supported the case of prosecution, as deposed by PW5 Charanjeet Kaur and PW6 Swaran Singh and also by PW14 SC No. 12/02 36/70 Gurpal Singh and PW15 Amarjeet Singh. PW14 has made improvements in his deposition against the accused persons, which are material because he has taken divorce from PW1 Neetu. Both PW14 and PW15 have made material improvements. They have changed their depositions again and again, for which, no explanation has been given. PW14 and PW15 do not inspire any confidence that they gave their statements recorded U/s. 164 of CrPC under the pressure of the accused persons. So, they cannot be relied upon.
PW1 Neetu and PW2 Lakhbir Kaur have not supported the case of prosecution. So, they have contradicted with PW5 Charanjeet Kaur and PW6 Swaran Singh on one hand and also contradicted with PW14 Gurpal Singh and PW15 Amarjeet Singh on other hand. It is also admitted fact that accused Ram Rati also got registered a case U/s. 365/34 of IPC against the complainant and her husband vide FIR No. 409/00 and the present FIR is of 2001, complaint of which was given in September 2001, which shows that PW6 has deposed with ulterior motives before the court that the case of the accused persons was registered subsequent to this case. FIR No. 409/00 was registered on 27/06/2000 i.e. about more than one year prior to the complaint Ex. PW5/A. So, considering the major contradictions and improvements made by the witnesses, PW5 Charanjeet Kaur, PW6 Swaran Singh, PW14 Gurpal Singh and PW15 Amarjeet Singh cannot be relied upon. They do not inspire any confidence. They are not trustworthy. So, prosecution has not been able to prove that accused persons kidnapped or abducted Lakhbir Kaur and Amarjeet Singh with intent to confine them secretly and wrongfully. Accordingly, prosecution has not been able to prove offence U/s. 365 of IPC against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts, for which, they are acquitted.
Findings qua offence U/s. 364A/34 of IPC:
Complaint was lodged by Charanjeet Kaur as Ex. PW5/A, wherein she has alleged that she and her husband asked Mata Nomita to return their children, but on behalf of Mata Nomita, accused Ram Rati demanded Rs. 10 lacs from them.SC No. 12/02 37/70
They showed their inability to pay Rs. 10 lacs. Thereafter, they also met with Maya, resident of Sahibabad, whose children were also kidnapped by the accused persons and she was taking action against them.
As one day, accused Ram Rati had seen them meeting Maya Goyal, so, thereafter, at the instance of Mata Nomita, accused Krishan Kumar and Satpal alongwith 4/5 persons came to their house with pistols and weapons and threatened them to kill them and asked them to pay Rs. 10 lacs and also further asked them to vacate the house and only thereafter their children will be released. So, according to complaint, ransom was demanded by accused persons against the release of children of PW5 complainant Charanjeet Kaur.
PW11 is SI Dinesh. On 03/09/2001, he was posted at Anti Kidnapping Section, Dev Nagar. On the complaint of Charanjeet Kaur Ex. PW5/A regarding kidnapping of her children Lakhbir Kaur, Amarjeet and Gurpal by Mata Kalyug Nashini @ Mata Nomita and her associates i.e. Krishan Kumar, Ram Rati and Satpal son of Ram Rati, he made endorsement Ex. PW11/A and handed over ruqqa to Constable Pradeep for getting registered the case on the basis of which, present FIR was registered.
Learned defence counsel has contended that PW16 Constable Pradeep Kumar has nowhere stated that ruqqa was given to him on 03/09/2001 by PW11 SI Dinesh and he got registered a case in this respect. Rather, he has stated that he joined the investigation of this case on 10/09/2001. So, there is no corroboration to the statement of PW11 SI Dinesh that he made endorsement Ex. PW11/A on the complaint and handed over ruqqa to PW16 Constable Pradeep Kumar for getting registered the FIR and inference can be drawn that no such ruqqa was given to Constable Pradeep .
PW9 ASI Ved Prakash has stated that he was posted as Duty Officer at PS Samay Pur Badli on 04/09/2001. A complaint was marked to him by Additional SHO, on the basis of which, he recorded FIR No. 584/01 of this case. He has produced original FIR register. Carbon copy of FIR is Ex. PW9/A. The SC No. 12/02 38/70 investigation was handed over to SI Dinesh Dahiya.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW9 ASI Ved Prakash has nowhere stated that PW16 Constable Pradeep brought ruqqa and handed over the same to him, on the basis of which, he recorded FIR. So, there is no corroboration to the statement of PW11 SI Dinesh that he made endorsement on complaint Ex. PW5/A and handed over ruqqa to PW16 Constable Pradeep Kumar for getting registered the case.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that rather PW9 has stated that complaint was marked to him by Additional SHO, on the basis of which, he recorded FIR of this case.
PW5 Charanjeet Kaur has stated that one day, she went to the temple alongwith Lakhbir Kaur, Amarjeet Singh and Ram Rati, Satpal, Kishan and Nomita told her that they want to keep her two children and stated that children will be released, if sum of Rs. 10 lac is paid. She told them that she is not in a position to pay Rs. 10 lacs. She pleaded to them, but they turned out her after giving beatings to her. Thereafter, they lodged a complaint and approached Crime Branch at Dev Nagar. She received a phone call from a stranger, who told to come at Bhagya Vihar with Rs. One lac. Her husband alongwith Crime Branch went to Bhagya Vihar. She had also gone with them. Her husband, in her presence, gave Rs. 50,000/- to accused Ram Rati and another Rs. 50,000/- to accused Krishan Kumar. Both were apprehended by the police. Her daughter Lakhbir Kaur was found in a vehicle, which was in the possession of accused Krishan Kumar. Accused Ram Rati was also present in the said vehicle. Accused Krishan Kumar told that he could get recovered other children and got recovered Neetu from Nathupura. Her two sons were still not traceable and could not be recovered till that time.
PW6 Swaran Singh has stated that accused Krishan Kumar gave a ring to him at his workplace and told him to bring Rs. 10 lacs so that his children could be released. He refused to pay the same since he could not pay the same. He told him that at the best, he could pay Rs. One lac. Accused Krishan Kumar gave address of SC No. 12/02 39/70 H.No. 74, Bhagya Vihar and asked to deliver the money to that place and he will hand over one child. He called Crime Branch. He alongwith his wife went to H.No. 74, Bhagya Vihar, where accused Krishan Kumar and Ram Rati met them. Crime Branch police had made two bundles containing Rs. 50,000/- each. Only Rs. 500/- note each was placed on the top and at the bottom and in between papers were inserted. Thereafter, they went to 74, Bhagya Vihar and after that, bundles were handed over to him.
PW6 Swaran Singh has further stated that "Kirtan" was under process at 74, Bhagya Vihar, when they reached there. One bundle each was handed over to accused Kishan Kumar and Ram Rati and Crime Branch team immediately apprehended accused Ram Rati and Krishan Kumar. The bundles remained with the accused persons. Both the accused were brought to Dev Nagar and put behind the bars. Crime Branch also took into possession the bundles at the time when these two accused persons were apprehended with bundles.
PW6 Swaran Singh has also identified both the bundles before the court. PW11 SI Dinesh has stated that on 14/09/2001, he conducted a raid with complainant and other staff at Bhagya Vihar, Sultanpuri, from where accused Krishan Kumar and Ram Rati were arrested vide memos Ex. PW11/C and Ex. PW11/B and their personal searches were conducted vide memo Ex. PW11/D and Ex. PW11/E. PW11 has further stated that raid was conducted as PW6 Swaran Singh has disclosed about the demand of Rs. One lac made by accused Krishan Kumar. He prepared two bundles of Rs. 50,000/- each by placing only one real currency note each on the top and bottom of the bundles. Seizure memo/handing over memo Ex. PW11/F was prepared and was handed over to PW6 Swaran Singh. Swaran Singh was given suitable instructions. Meanwhile, Maya Goyal also reached there and he recorded her statement regarding her children Neetu and Sachin having been kidnapped by accused Ram Rati, Krishan Kumar, Satpal and Maa Kalyug Nashini @ Mata Nomita.SC No. 12/02 40/70
PW11 has further stated that PW6 Swaran Singh as per instructions talked with accused Krishan Kumar and handed over the money to Krishan Kumar, which he had handed over to Swaran Singh vide memo Ex. PW11/F. Swaran Singh gave the signal and raid was conducted. Swaran Singh told him that he handed over the money to accused Krishan Kumar, half of which was given to accused Ram Rati. Lakhbir Kaur was found sitting in the car of accused Krishan Kumar. She was recovered from the said car. Memo Ex. PW11/G was prepared. Car was also seized vide memo Ex. PW11/H. One bundle each of Rs. 50,000/- was recovered from accused Ram Rati and Krishan Kumar vide seizure memo Ex. PW11/I of Krishan Kumar and PW11/J of Ram Rati respectively. The bundles were converted into pullandas with the seal of "DK".
PW11 SI Dinesh has further stated that both the accused were interrogated and their disclosure statements were recorded. Accused Krishan Kumar disclosed that Neetu had been confined and concealed in the house of Rakesh at Nathupura. Disclosure statement of accused Krishan Kumar is Ex. PW11/K. Accused Krishan Kumar led the police party to house of Rakesh Kumar at Nathupura, Burari and Neetu was recovered from there. Recovery memo Ex. PW11/L was prepared. Mata Nomita could not be located.
PW11 has further stated that he sent both Neetu and Lakhbir Kaur for their medical examination. Sealed slide and sample seal of both were handed over to him by the doctor, which he took into possession vide memo Ex. PW11/M. He had also prepared body inspection memos of accused Krishan Kumar and Ram Rati Ex. PW11/N and Ex. PW11/O. PW11 has further stated that both the accused alongwith Neetu and Lakhbir Kaur were produced before the court. Both were remanded to J.C, whereas Neetu and Lakhbir Kaur were sent to Nari Niketan. He prepared site plan Ex. PW11/F of the Ashram at Mukundpur at the instance of PW5 Charanjeet Kaur and PW6 Swaran Singh. He deposited the slides in the malkhana and recorded statements of witnesses.SC No. 12/02 41/70
PW11 has identified the bundles of the currency notes bearing the signatures of PW6 Swaran Singh on the top and bottom of currency notes as Ex. P1 and Ex. P2.
A leading question was put by learned Addl. PP with the permission of the court to the witness, wherein PW11 SI Dinesh admitted that raid was conducted on 16/09/2001 and not on 14/09/2001.
Learned defence counsel has contended that neither PW1 Neetu has stated that she was recovered at the instance of accused Krishan Kumar from the house of Rakesh Pal at Nathu Pura, Burari, nor PW2 Lakhbir Kaur has stated that she was recovered from the car of accused Krishan Kumar during the raid conducted by officials of Crime Branch accompanied by her parents. PW2 Lakhbir Kaur has specifically denied the suggstion during cross examination by learned Addl. PP that accused Krishan Kumar took him to Bhagya Vihar and when her father paid the money, then accused Krishan Kumar and Ram Rati were apprehended and she was saved.
PW12 is Rakesh Pal. He has stated that he is running a Mother Dairy Booth and having a Halwai shop opposite Gali No. 9, Main Road, Prem Nagar, Nathu Pura, Delhi. He does not know any of the accused persons present in the court. He had given a room in his house to Neetu on rent about four years back. Neetu and her husband, whose name he does not remember, and brother of husband of Neetu used to reside there.
This witness has also not supported the case of prosecution. So, he has been cross examined by learned Addl. PP. In the cross examination, he has denied that room was given on rent to accused Ram Rati at the rate of Rs. 400/- p.m. He has also denied that accused Ram Rati had represented to him that her children will reside there. PW12 has admitted that Gurpal and Neetu were residing there as husband and wife. PW12 has again denied the suggestion that accused Ram Rati used to visit the said room. He has also denied the suggestion that he charged rent from accused Ram Rati, rather, he has stated that in lieu of rent, Neetu used to give SC No. 12/02 42/70 tuitions to his children.
Learned defence counsel has contended that it shows that they were not confined there by the accused persons in any manner.
PW12 has further stated that one Dinesh Dahiya of Crime Branch met him and informed that in case a lady, who is called "Mata" visits him, then he should immediately inform him. PW12 has voluntarily stated that "Mata" had come after Neetu was picked up by the police of Crime Branch. He gave a ring to Dinesh Dahiya on his phone number, but the moment, he gave a ring, "Mata" left in the taxi as she had the information that a raid had been conducted at the said premises by the police.
Learned defence counsel has contended that PW12 Rakesh Pal has stated that at the time of raid, he was at his shop, which is at a distance of 100 metres from his house. Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW12 has not stated that Neetu was recovered on the pointing of accused Krisha Kumar or accused Krishan Kumar led the police party.
PW12 Rakesh Pal has stated that police was accompanied by 2 or 3 females. The raid was conducted on 16/09/2001. He also reached there at his house. Gurpal and Amarjeet were not present there at that time. Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW12 has admitted in the cross examination that police had locked the premises after leaving with Neetu and did not hand over the keys to him. Mother of Neetu had come to the house. She had opened the house and taken the luggage, which shows that Smt. Maya, mother of Neetu was not accompanying the police at the time of raid.
PW12 has further stated that raid was conducted at about 4.00 or 5.00 p.m. He has further stated that he does not know accused Ram Rati, Swaran Singh and Charanjeet Kaur. So, he cannot say whether they were present at the time of raid or not. Police had come in one or two Tata Sumos. When he reached at the spot, Neetu and police persons and others had already sat in the vehicles and he was told that Maya was permitted to take goods. PW12 has further stated that parents SC No. 12/02 43/70 of Neetu never visited, when she was residing as a tenant. Parents of Gurpal also never visited the premises. PW12 has also stated that Neetu used to give tuitions to his daughter. Other children also used to come to take tuitions from Neetu.
Learned defence counsel has contended that PW12 Rakesh Pal has not supported the case of prosecution in any manner regarding the identity of accused krishan Kumar and the fact that accused Krishan Kumar led the police party to his house and on his pointing, Neetu was recovered. Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW12 Rakesh Pal has also not supported the case of prosecution that room was taken on rent by accused Ram Rati for Neetu and Gurpal. Learned defence counsel has further contended that from the statement of PW12 Rakesh Pal, it is clear that Gurpal, Neetu and his brother used to reside there. Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW12 has nowhere stated either in the chief or in the cross examination that accused Ram Rati used to visit Neetu, Gurpal Singh and Amarjeet Singh,which shows that they were residing there voluntarily and were not under any confinement or force or were not compelled to reside there in any manner by the accused persons.
Learned defence counsel has contended that witnesses regarding the payment of ransom amount to accused Krishan Kumar and Ram Rati and further recovery of Lakhbir Kaur and recovery of Neetu on the pointing of accused Krishan Kumar, have not supported the case of prosecution. They have contradicted each other and the contradictions are major. So, they cannot be believed in this respect.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW1 Neetu has denied that ransom was demanded by the accused persons from her parents. Learned defence counsel has further contended that statement of Neetu has not been recorded U/s. 161 CrPC to the effect that on 16/09/2001 that she was recovered from Nathupura on the pointing of accused Krishan Kumar by the police nor she has deposed the same before the court in any manner, which discredit the witness of the prosecution in this respect.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW2 Lakhbir Kaur has SC No. 12/02 44/70 also not supported the case of prosecution in this respect and has stated that accused persons never demanded any money on any account from her parents. Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW2 Lakhbir Kaur has denied that accused Krishan Kumar took her to Bhagya Vihar and when her father paid the money, then accused Krishan Kumar and Ram Rati were apprehended and she was saved. She has also denied that she has stated so to the police. She has been confronted with her statement. So, the case of the prosecution regarding payment of ransom and recovery of Lakhbir Kaur and Neetu is doubtful. Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW2 Lakhbir Kaur has rather admitted that because she married with accused Satpal against the wishes of her parents, so, they instituted a false case against them.
Learned defence counsels has further contended that PW5 Charanjeet Kaur and PW6 Swaran Singh have also contradicted each other. PW5 Charanjeet Kaur has stated that she received a phone call from a stranger, who told her to come at Bhagya Vihar with Rs. One lac and she alongwith the police and her husband went to Bhagya Vihar. Her husband, in her presence, gave Rs. 50,000/- to accused Ram Rati and another Rs. 50,000/- to accused Krishan Kumar. Both were apprehended. Lakhbir Kaur was found in a vehicle, which was in the possession of accused krishan Kumar. Accused Ram Rati was also present in the said vehicle.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that on the other hand, PW6 Swaran Singh has stated that accused Krishan Kumar gave a ring at his workplace and told him to bring Rs. 10 lacs, so that, his children could be released. PW6 Swaran Singh has further stated that he told accused Krishan Kumar at the best, he could pay Rs. One lac only and accused krishan Kumar gave address of 74, Bhagya Vihar and asked him to deliver the money to that place. Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW6 Swaran Singh has further stated that they reached with the police at Bhagya Vihar and met with accused Krishan Kumar and Ram Rati and handed over two bundles containing Rs. 50,000/- each having only one original currency note of Rs. 500/- each on the top and the bottom, which were SC No. 12/02 45/70 signed by PW6 Swaran Singh, but it has not been stated so by PW5 Charanjeet Kaur that any bundles of currency note of Rs. 50,000/- each were prepared by the Crime Branch officials having original currency notes of Rs. 500/- each on the top and the bottom of the packet.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW5 Charanjeet Kaur has also not deposed that the original currency notes were signed by her husband. Rather, she has stated that they arranged Rs. One lac from the house. The money was lying in their house. Learned defence counsel has further contended that only one currency note of Rs. 500/- each was placed on the top and the bottom of each packet, then Rs. One lac were not required to be arranged by PW5 Charanjeet Kaur and PW6 Swaran Singh in any manner.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that Smt. Charanjeet Kaur, Swaran Singh and police witnesses are silent about the original currency notes of Rs. One lac. Whether these were given to the police or were returned by the police to Swaran Singh or Smt. Charanjeet Kaur. It seems that the same was given to the police to frame the accused persons falsely.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW5 Charanjeet Kaur has stated in the cross examination that accused Ram Rati, Krishan Kumar and Satpal were found sitting in the vehicle from which her daughter Lakhbir Kaur was recovered. Learned defence counsel has further contended that according to cross of PW5 Charanjeet Kaur, Nomita was standing at a distance from the vehicle. Learned defence counsel has further contended that accused Satpal was also apprehended at the same time, although he tried to escape and her husband made payment to accused Ram Rati and Krishan Kumar. Learned defence counsel has further contended that it is not the case of prosecution that accused Satpal was arrested from that place or he was also present, where allegedly the ransom money was paid.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW6 Swaran Singh has also contradicted with these facts and has stated that "Kirtan" was under process at 74, Bhagya Vihar, when they reached there and it has not been stated by any other SC No. 12/02 46/70 witness. Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW6 Swaran Singh has stated that he handed over one bundle each to accused Ram Rati and Krishan Kumar. PW6 has nowhere stated that accused Satpal was also present in the car.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that according to cross examination of PW6 Swaran Singh, he obtained a loan of Rs. One lac from his association, but no such document has been placed on record. Moreover, if only one or two currency notes were to be placed on the top and the bottom of the bundles, there was no need to take loan by PW6 Swaran Singh in any manner. Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW6 Swaran Singh has stated that Maya Goyal was with them at that time, which is not stated by PW5 Charanjeet Kaur. Learned defence counsel has further contended that according to cross examination of PW6 Swaran Singh, police did not prepare any document at Bhagya Vihar nor statement was recorded, which is also contradictory to the depositions of the witnesses.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that in further cross examination, PW6 Swaran Singh has stated that money was delivered inside the house situated in a colony at Bhagya Vihar. Accused Ram Rati and Krishan Kumar were apprehended and bundles of currency notes were recovered from them. Learned defence counsel has further contended that from the cross examination of PW5 Charanjeet Kaur and PW6 Swaran Singh, it is doubtful whether money was delivered to accused Krishan Kumar or to accused Ram Rati in the car, near the car or inside the house. Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW6 Swaran Singh has stated that bundles were sealed at the place of recovery and were seized. Police brought both the accused and bundles to the police station. Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW6 Swaran Singh has further contradicted with PW5 Charanjeet Kaur, who has stated that police had not prepared any document at Bhagya Vihar and no statement was recorded.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that according to cross examination of PW6 Swaran Singh, memos Ex. PW11/I and Ex. PW11/J were SC No. 12/02 47/70 prepared at the office of Crime Branch at Dev Nagar. Learned defence counsel has further contended that witnesses have also contradicted with each other. PW5 Charanjeet Kaur has clarified in her further cross examination that Lakhbir Kaur was recovered from a vehicle in the area of Bhagya Vihar, whereas PW6 Swaran Singh has stated that he does not know from where his daughter was recovered, but she was recovered from the area of Nathupura and he did not accompany the police at that time.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW6 Swaran Singh has been cross examined by learned Addl. PP on these aspects and thereafter he has admitted that accused Ram Rati and Krishan Kumar both disclosed that they could get recovered his daughter Lakhbir Kaur from the area of Nathupura, which is also contradictory to the depositions of the other witnesses. Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW6 Swaran Singh has further admitted that his daughter Lakhbir Kaur was recovered from Maruti Car No. DL-2CB-0874. Learned defence counsel has further contended that in such situation, PW6 Swaran Singh cannot be believed in any manner as sometime, he is giving some answers and other time, he is giving other answers, which are contradictory to each other. So, he does not inspire any confidence and is not trustworthy in any manner.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW5 Charanjeet Kaur and PW6 Swaran Singh both have deposed falsely because of case FIR No. 409/00, U/s. 365/34 of IPC of PS Samay Pur Badli, which has been admitted so by PW6 Swaran Singh that the same was got registered by the accused persons against him.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW11 SI Dinesh has contradicted with other witnesses and has stated that no Satsang was going on at the time, when raid was conducted at Bhagya Vihar. Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW11 SI Dinesh has denied the suggestion that documents were prepared at the office of crime branch, rather he has stated that these were prepared at the respective places.SC No. 12/02 48/70
Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW11 SI Dinesh has admitted that Maya Goyal also came at Bhagya Vihar at her own and was not called by anybody. He has further stated that he does not know how Maya Goyal came to know that police was conducting a raid at Bhagya Vihar. Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW6 Swaran Singh has nowhere stated that Maya Goyal also came at Bhagya Vihar. Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW11 SI Dinesh has stated in his cross examination that four currency notes of Rs. 500/- denomination were used for preparing bundles, which are Ex. P1 and Ex. P2. No amount was taken from Swaran Singh or complainant for preparing the bundles. The amount used of Rs. 2000/- was of the police. Learned defence counsel has further contended that this fact is contrary to the depositions of PW5 Charanjeet Kaur and PW6 Swaran Singh, who have stated that they arranged Rs. One lac to pay as ransom to accused Krishan Kumar and Ram Rati.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW11 SI Dinesh has further contended that Rs. One lac were brought by complainant and were appropriated by the police to falsely implicate the accused persons in this case.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that Lakhbir Kaur and accused Satpal married with each other at their own free will, but this was not verified by PW11 SI Dinesh in spite of the statement of Lakhbir Kaur to the doctor concerned at the time of her medical examination, which shows that accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case. Learned defence counsel has further contended that there is no public/independent witness to the proceedings, which also creates doubt on the case of the prosecution.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW13 Maya Goyal has nowhere stated that she also reached at Bhagya Vihar at the time, when raid was conducted by the police, although some of the witnesses have stated that Maya Goyal also reached there. So, there is no corroboration regarding the fact that Maya Goyal also reached at Bhagya Vihar at the time, when raid was conducted. Learned defence counsel has further contended that even PW13 Maya Goyal has not stated SC No. 12/02 49/70 that Neetu was recovered from Nathupura on the pointing of accused Krishan Kumar. Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW12 Rakesh Pal has stated in the cross examination that police had locked the premises after leaving the same with Neetu, whereas PW11 SI Dinesh has stated in the cross examination that house was left open after recovery of Neetu and was not locked by the police or by him. Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW12 Rakesh Pal has stated that mother of Neetu had come after the raid and she opened the lock and had taken the luggage, which is also contrary to the depositions of PW13 Maya Goyal and PW11 SI Dinesh.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW16 Constable Pradeep, who accompanied PW11 SI Dinesh, has stated that accused Ram Rati was sitting in the rear seat of the car. Lakhbir Kaur was also sitting on the back seat of the Maruti Car. He overpowered accused Krishan Kumar. W/HC overpowered accused Ram Rati. Learned defence counsel has further contended that none of the witnesses either PW5 Charanjeet Kaur, PW6 Swaran Singh or PW11 SI Dinesh has stated about any W/HC and also that accused Ram Rati was overpowered by such lady Head Constable. Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW16 Constable Pradeep has stated that he does not know, who prepared the bundles of the currency notes. These were not prepared in his presence. Only original currency note on the top and bottom of the bundles were placed. The original currency notes of Rs. 500/-each were given by the Investigating officer. Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW16 Constable Pradeep has further stated in the cross examination that PW6 Swaran Singh did not sign on the slip of the bundles of the currency notes, which shows that case of prosecution in this respect is false and fabricated.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that no public person was found present at the spot i.e. Bhagya Vihar, whereas PW11 SI Dinesh has stated that some public persons were available and he requested them to join the proceedings, SC No. 12/02 50/70 but they refused.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW16 Constable Pradeep has also contradicted with other witnesses and has stated that bundles of currency notes were handed over to accused Krishan Kumar by PW6 Swaran Singh in the Maruti Car. Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW16 Constable Pradeep has also contradicted with PW5 Charanjeet Kaur and PW6 Swaran Singh and has stated that all the writing work was done at the spot, whereas they have not stated so and have stated that writing work was done in the office of Crime Branch, Dev Nagar.
On the other hand, learned Addl. PP has contended that car No. DL-2C- 0874 was also recovered from the spot. The same has been identified by the witnesses. It was seized by the police and was deposited in the malkhana. Learned Addl. PP has further contended that PW3 Head Constable Amar Pal Singh, who was working as MHC(M) on 16/09/2001, has stated that car No. DL-2C-0874 alongwith personal search of accused Krishan Kumar and two pullandas duly sealed with the seal of "DK" were deposited with him. PW3 has also proved copy of entry Ex. PW3/A. Learned Addl. PP has further contended that identity of the car has not been disputed by the accused persons. Moreover, PW3 has not been cross examined in any manner nor suggested that the relevant entry was made at the instance of the Investigating officer. Learned Addl. PP has further contended that car was released to accused Krishan Kumar on superdari and it has not been suggested to the witness that car was lifted from the house of accused Krishan Kumar or from somewhere else and not from Bhagya Vihar. Learned Addl. PP has further contended that contradictions as pointed out by learned defence counsel are minor in nature and on these contradictions, witnesses cannot be disbelieved. They inspire confidence and are trustworthy. So, prosecution has been able to proved beyond reasonable doubts that as per instructions of accused Krishan Kumar and Ram Rati, ransom was paid to them and Lakhbir Kaur was recovered, while sitting in the car of accused Krishan SC No. 12/02 51/70 Kumar, by the police.
As it has already been held that prosecution has not been able to prove offence U/s. 365 of IPC i.e. kidnapping of Lakhbir Kaur and Amarjeet Singh by the accused persons. From the depositions of the witnesses i.e. PW5 Charanjeet Kaur and PW6 Swaran Singh, prosecution has not been able to prove the fact that Lakhbir Kaur and Amarjeet Singh were abducted by the accused persons or were kept in detention by the accused persons. PW14 Gurpal Singh and PW15 Amarjeet Singh, when allegedly were recovered in the intervening night of 14.15/12/2002, they did not tell to the police that they were abducted by the accused persons. They both told to the police that their minds were influenced by the accused persons.
Thereafter, statements of PW14 Gurpal Singh and PW15 Amarjeet Singh were recorded U/s. 164 of CrPC, wherein they did not support the case of the prosecution. Rather, they deposed against their parents and the police and alleged that they were confined and detained by their parents. Before the court, both PW14 and PW15 have deposed that they gave their statements U/s. 164 of CrPC under pressure and threat of the accused persons, but since 2002 till their evidence before the court, they did not make any complaint anywhere that their statements recorded U/s. 164 CrPC were given by them under threat and pressure of the accused persons. Both PW14 and PW15 have made major improvements and they have contradicted also with other witnesses. So, they cannot be relied upon as they do not inspire any confidence.
PW5 Charanjeet Kaur and PW6 Swaran Singh have stated that accused Krishan Kumar demanded Rs. 10 lacs to release Lakhbir Kaur and they settled the same for a payment of Rs. One lac, but both have contradicted each other regarding the fact as to who communicated the demand of ransom. PW5 Charanjeet Kaur has stated that she received a phone call from a stanger to pay Rs. One lac as ransom. On the other hand, PW6 Swaran Singh has stated that accused Krishan Kumar asked him to reach at Bhagya Vihar with Rs. One lac to pay as ransom for release of Lakhbir Kaur.SC No. 12/02 52/70
Both PW5 and PW6 have stated that they arranged Rs. One lac to pay as ransom, whereas PW11 SI Dinesh and PW16 Constable Pradeep Kumar have stated that two bundles of currency notes of Rs. 50,000/- each were prepared having only one original currency note of Rs. 500/- each on the top and bottom of the bundles. The currency notes of Rs. 500/- were signed by PW6 Swaran Singh. The raiding party reached at Bhagya Vihar and PW6 handed over each currency note packet of Rs. 50,000/- each to accused Krishan Kumar and Ram Rati. It is not explained as to why PW5 and PW6 arranged for Rs. One lac, when original currency note of Rs. One lac were not to be handed over to the accused persons.
PW11 SI Dinesh has stated in the cross examination that those four currency notes of Rs. 500/- i.e. of Rs. 2000/- were given by him. So, neither PW5 and PW6 on one hand nor PW11 and PW16 on other hand have been able to explain as to where Rs. One lac had gone, which were arranged by PW6 to pay as ransom.
All these four witnesses have contradicted each other as to where the ransom money was paid, as to whether in the car or in the house. They have also contradicted each other as to whether ransom money was paid only to accused Krishan Kumar or one packet of Rs. 50,000/- each was handed over to accused Krishan Kumar and Ram Rati. The witnesses have also contradicted each other as to whether accused Ram Rati was present in the house or was sitting in the car. According to these four witnesses, Lakhbir Kaur was recovered from the car of accused krishan Kumar and both these accused were apprehended, but they have contradicted each other as to where the writing work was done. According to PW5 Charanjeet Kaur and PW6 Swaran Singh, nothing was done at the spot and after the recovery and arrest, they reached at the office of Crime Branch, Dev Nagar, whereas both the police witnesses have stated that writing work was done at the spot. So, the witnesses do not inspire any confidence regarding the handing over of the ransom money to both the accused persons, further regarding the recovery of Lakhbir Kaur from the car of accused Krishan Kumar, further regarding the proceedings conducted, either at the spot or in the office of Crime Branch, Dev Nagar.SC No. 12/02 53/70
Lakhbir Kaur has been examined as PW2. She has not supported the case of prosecution in any manner to corroborate the fact that she was recovered from the car of accused Krishan Kumar after paying the ransom amount by her father PW6 Swaran Singh. She has not supported the case of prosecution in any manner that she was kidnapped by the accused persons and she was released by the accused persons for payment of ransom amount by her father PW6 Swaran Singh. The contradiction is major as victim herself has not supported the case of prosecution regarding the kidnapping and her release after payment of the ransom and there is no corroboration with PW5 Charanjeet Kaur, PW6 Swaran Singh, PW11 SI Dinesh and PW16 Constable Pradeep Kumar. Even otherwise, all these PWs have contradicted each other as discussed above. So, they do not inspire any confidence and cannot be relied upon in any manner.
According to the depositions of PW11 SI Dinesh and PW16 Constable Pradeep Kumar on the pointing of accused Krishan Kumar, one Neetu was recovered from a room in Nathupura, whose landlord was PW12 Rakesh Pal. He has also not supported the case of prosecution in any manner. One Maya Goyal also reached at the spot. The witnesses have contradicted each other about her presence and also about the fact as to how she came to know about raid. PW11 SI Dinesh and PW12 Rakesh Pal have also contradicted each other as to whether after the recovery of Neetu, the room was left open or was locked. PW12 Rakesh Pal has also stated that articles lying in the room were collected by Maya Goyal after opening the lock of the same, which shows that key might have been provided to Maya Goyal by the police to remove the goods.
According to the deposition of PW12 Rakesh Pal, Neetu was residing there voluntarily and she was neither confined or detained in any manner by the accused persons. She was residing there with her husband PW14 Gurpal Singh and her brother in law PW15 Amarjeet Singh and she used to do tuitions and also used to give tuitions to the children of PW12 Rakesh Pal. So, the recovery of Neetu from the room of the house of PW12 Rakesh Pal is also contradictory to the deposition of SC No. 12/02 54/70 PW1 Neetu, who has not supported the case of prosecution in any manner in this respect that she was got released by the police from a room of house of PW12 Rakesh Pal from Nathupura.
In view of above, PW5 Charanjeet Kaur, PW6 Swaran Singh, PW11 SI Dinesh and PW16 Constable Pradeep Kumar do not inspire any confidence. They have contradicted each other, which are material. PW1 Neetu and PW2 Lakhbir Kaur both victims have not supported the case of prosecution regarding the kidnapping and release of Lakhbir Kaur after payment of ransom. PW2 Lakhbir Kaur was eye witness because as per depositions of these witnesses, she was sitting in the car, when ransom was paid, but she has not supported the same in any manner. So, prosecution has not been able to prove offence U/s. 364A/34 of IPC against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts, for which, they are acquitted.
Findings qua offence U/s. 342/34 of IPC :
The accused persons Satpal and Ram Rati have been charged for offence U/s. 342/34 of IPC regarding the children i.e. Amarjeet Singh and Lakhbir Kaur.
According to Section 340 of IPC, wrongful confinement means whosoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceedings beyond certain circumscribing limits, then it is said to be wrongful confinement.
Lakhbir Kaur has been examined as PW2. She has not supported the case of the prosecution. She has specifically stated that neither she nor her brother Gurpal were ever forcibly detained in the temple by any person. Even in the cross examination conducted by learned Addl. PP, she has not supported the case of prosecution.
Another witness is PW15 Amarjeet Singh. He has stated that three years before this case of 2001, he alongwith his parents, brother and sister used to visit Kalyug Nashini Mandir in Mukundpur. Accused Ram Rati, Krishan Kumar, Satpal SC No. 12/02 55/70 along with Mata Nomita used to meet them in the temple. They used to perform "havan" in the Mandir and also used to give "bhabhooti" as "prasad". Accused Krishan Kumar was known as Hanuman; accused Ram Rati was known as Gurumata, Mata Nomita was known as Vaishno Mata and accused Satpal was known as Bhairon Baba. Accused persons used to say to the visitors in the temple that the world will come to an end in 2001 and only those will survive, who will come under their umbrella. After hearing these words repeatedly, he came under the influence of the accused persons and started visiting the temple regularly. They also started "karsewa" in the temple. His father and brother Gurpal Singh had also done masonry work in installation of tin roof in the temple. Again he was called by the accused persons in the temple. He along with his sister Lakhbir Kaur went to the temple. Accused persons influenced their minds with their talking. He was aged about 16-17 years at that time. Accused persons told them that they were not ordinary souls and they both started residing there in the temple. During the said period, Maya Goyal also started visiting the temple alongwith her children Neetu Goyal and Sachin and they also started "Karsewa".
PW15 Amarjeet Singh has further stated that after sometime, marriage of his brother Gurpal was also fixed with Neetu and he was forcibly instructed to be a witness to the marriage. Even his brother and Neetu were not interested in the marriage. Thereafter, accused persons arranged separate accommodation for Satpal and his sister Lakhbir Kaur and another room for himself, his brother and his wife Neetu in Nathu Pura.
Learned defence counsel has contended that PW15 Amarjeet Singh has nowhere stated that accused persons wrongfully confined him anywhere and he was not allowed to proceed beyond certain limits.
PW15 Amarjeet Singh has further stated that after sometime, all the accused came to their room at Nathupura and told that time had come to see their souls. Neetu was left behind in the room. He and his brother Gurpal Singh were left at Vrindavan. They were asked to serve in the ashram at Vrindavan. For one or two SC No. 12/02 56/70 months, they served in the ashram. Thereafter, they started thinking about coming back to Delhi, but the accused persons came to know about their planning and took a room on rent in Vrindavan and confined him and his brother in the said room and gave them beatings. They remained confined in the said room for about 2/4 months under the accused persons. On 27/11/2002, accused persons received a telephone call from accused Ram Rati, who instructed the accused persons to bring both of them to Delhi. They came back to Delhi on 02/12/2002 in a temple at Bhagya Vihar, Madanpur Dabas, Delhi. Accused persons again took a room on rent at Bhagya Vihar and were again confined there. They were given beatings. After some days, suddenly police came there in the night and they both were removed to PS Kanjhawla.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that this part of the deposition of PW15 Amarjeet Singh has not been corroborated by PW14 Gurpal Singh, his brother. PW14 Gurpal Singh has stated that they were confined by the accused persons and were kept at different places. Accused persons used to tie his hands and feet with the help of rope. Accused persons took him and his brother Amarjeet Singh, his sister Lakhbir Kaur and Neetu in a room at Nathu Pura and confined them there. Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW15 Amarjeet Singh has nowhere stated that they were confined in a room at Nathupura. PW15 has also not stated that accused persons used to tie hands and feet of his brother Gurpal Singh.
PW14 Gurpal Singh has further stated that accused Ram Rati, Krishan Kumar and Satpal took them to Vrindavan in a ashram and they were kept there. Accused persons used to give them drugs in "Prasad" and sometimes in the form of tablets.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW14 Gurpal Singh has nowhere stated that they were beaten in the room at Vrindavan. Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW14 has nowhere stated that on 02/12/2002 at the instance of accused Ram Rati, they both were brought back to Delhi and were SC No. 12/02 57/70 kept in a temple at Bhagya Vihar. PW14 has also not stated that accused persons again took a room on rent in the temple and confined them there and they both were beaten. PW14 has also not stated that after some days, police came there suddenly and they were removed to PS Kanjhawala, as has been stated by PW15 Amarjeet Singh.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that according to the case of prosecution, both were recovered in the night of 14.15/12/2002. Statement of both were recorded U/s. 161 of CrPC, wherein they have not stated that they were confined in the temple or in a rented room at Bhagya Vihar by the accused persons. Learned defence counsel has further contended that in the statement recorded U/s. 161 CrPC, both PW14 Gurpal Singh and PW15 Amarjeet Singh have not stated to the police that they were beaten by the accused persons. Learned defence counsel has further contended that in the statements, it has been stated by both PW14 and PW15 that their minds were changed by the accused persons and at their instance, they left their parents. Learned defence counsel has further contended that these allegations do not come with the definition of wrongful confinement. Learned defence counsel has further contended that according to the statement recorded U/s. 161 CrPC, both served at Vrindavan in Akhandanand Ashram of Swami Sachidanand without any selfishness and they were brought to Delhi on 02/12/2002, where they stayed in a rented room at the instance of accused Ram Rati. So, both were not wrongfully confined by the accused persons in any manner and both were not kept by the accused persons under the lock and key.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW14 Gurpal Singh and PW15 Amarjeet Singh have also not corroborated each other that the hands and feet of Gurpal Singh were tied by the accused persons and they were beaten and were confined for 2/4 months and the same is improvement, which is not appearing in their statements recorded U/s. 161 CrPC.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that at the time of making statement U/s. 161 CrPC, it has not been alleged by both the witnesses therein that SC No. 12/02 58/70 they were under the fear of the accused persons or were under the threat of accused persons. Learned defence counsel has further contended that statements were recorded in December 2002 and at that time, Gurpal Singh was also major and even Amarjeet Singh was also major. So, it cannot be said that they were under the influence of accused persons in any manner.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that statements U/s. 164 of CrPC were recorded of Gurpal Singh on 15/12/2002 and of Amarjeet Singh on 17/12/2002, wherein they turned from their statements recorded U/s. 161 CrPC and made allegations against their parents and police. So, the witnesses cannot be believed in any manner that they were confined at any time in Delhi or at Vrindavan.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW18 Jagdish Gupta has stated that he went to Crime Branch office to inform the police that on 14/03/2002, he had seen Gurpal Singh alongwith his brother Amarjeet in Adarsh Nagar, which shows that before 02/12/2002, they were not confined in any manner. Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW18 Jagdish Gupta met with Amarjeet only once, when he was with Gurpal Singh on 14/03/2002 and on that day, both were not wearing their turbans. PW18 Jagdish Gupta has further stated that he had told to the police that Amarjeet Singh and Gurpal Singh were not missing and they both used to roam here and there.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW18 has given a statement in writing, signed by him, to the Crime Branch on 14/03/2002, which shows that both were not confined by the accused persons in any manner, otherwise they could not have been seen by PW18 in the area of Adarsh Nagar nor there was any occasion for PW18 to depose before the court in the cross examination that both Gurpal Singh and Amarjeet Singh were not missing and were roaming here and there. PW18 Jagdish Gupta is an independent witness. He is neither related to complainant party nor to the accused persons. He is simply known to witness Gurpal Singh as doing the work of tour and travel because Gurpal Singh was SC No. 12/02 59/70 working as driver and was attached with the same travel agency with which PW18 had attached his vehicle. So, there is no reason to disbelieve PW18 in this respect.
On the other hand, learned Addl. PP has contended that PW5 Charanjeet Kaur has stated that one day, she went in the temple alongwith Lakhbir Kaur and Amarjeet Singh. Accused Ram Rati, Satpal and Krishan told that they want to keep the two children with them and stated that children belongs to them and they will be released, if a sum of Rs. 10 lacs is paid. She told them that she is not in a position to pay Rs. 10 lacs. She pleaded to them, but they turned her out after giving beatings, which shows that Lakhbir Kaur and Amarjeet Singh were wrongfully confined by the accused persons. Learned Addl. PP has further contended that PW6 Swaran Singh has stated that after finishing the work at Kalyug Nashini Mandir, accused Ram Rati told him that Lakhbir Kaur, Amarjeet Singh and Gurpal will stay in the ashram only. Thereafter, he was not permitted to meet his children by accused Ram Rati. Mata Nomita ordered accused Ram Rati not to permit him to meet his children, which shows that children were wrongfully confined by the accused persons in the ashram/temple.
On the other hand, learned defence counsel has contended that since PW2 Lakhbir Kaur has not supported the case of prosecution in this respect, then the depositions of PW5 Charanjeet Kaur and PW6 Swaran Singh in this respect have no value. Learned defence counsel has further contended that according to bone age X-ray report of PW2 Lakhbir Kaur, she was more than 19 years on 20/09/2001. Learned defence counsel has further contended that she was major, hence was at liberty to reside wherever according to her liking.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that no particular date or year has been given as to when accused persons wrongfully confined the children of PW5 Charanjeet Kaur and PW6 Swaran Singh. The complaint has been lodged in the year 2001 and according to the complaint Ex.PW5/A, it all started two years before. So, all these incidents should be within September 99 to September 2001, according to the complaint and even at that time, Lakhbir Kaur must have been aged SC No. 12/02 60/70 about 17 years. So, She was not a child to be wrongly confined anywhere.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that assuming Amarjeet Singh also aged about 17 years at that time, even then, he was not a child to be wrongfully confined anywhere. The temple was visited by several devotees. They did not disclose their confinement to anyone. Even if they were confined in Vrindavan, assuming so, then they never raised any hue and cry about their wrongful confinement nor in Nathupura, they made any complaint to their neighbours about their wrongful confinement. It is not the case of both the witnesses that they were kept under the lock and key by the accused persons. PW14 Gurpal Singh and PW15 Amarjeet Singh have stated nothing about their wrongful confinement in their statements recorded U/s. 161 CrPC either in the temple/ashram or in Vrindavan or at Nathu Pura.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that only plea of PW14 Gurpal Singh and PW15 Amarjeet Singh is that their minds were influenced by the accused persons. Even then, it cannot be said that they were wrongfully confined at any place as stated by them before the court, by the accused persons, if at all they had stated, then they resided at their own either in temple or in Vrindavan or at Nathupura. So, offence U/s. 342 of IPC is not made out against the accused persons.
In view of above discussion, PW2 Lakhbir Kaur has not supported the case of prosecution that she was wrongfully confined or was prevented by the accused persons from proceeding in any direction. PW15 Amarjeet Singh has stated that his mind was influenced by the accused persons. So, he started residing in the temple with the accused persons and started doing Sewa in the temple without any selfishness. He also served in Vrindavan in a ashram. From the depositions of PW1 Neetu and PW12 Rakesh Pal, it is clear that PW15 Amarjeet Singh resided in Nathupura with his brother PW14 Gurpal Singh and his sister in law PW1 Neetu for 7/8 months and they were not confined there by any means by the accused persons. Even in the temple, they were not confined in any manner. During those two years, they did not make any complaint to any of the visitors.
SC No. 12/02 61/70Firstly, PW15 Amarjeet Singh deposed against the accused persons by saying that his mind was influenced by the accused persons in his statement recorded U/s. 161 of CrPC. Thereafter in his statement recorded U/s. 164 of CrPC, PW15 Amarjeet Singh deposed against his parents and the police and later on before the court, he has stated that he gave statement recorded U/s. 164 of CrPC under the pressure and threat of the accused persons, but since the day of recording of his statement U/s. 164 of CrPC, PW15 Amarjeet Singh did not raise any objection till his examination before the court that he had given his statement under the pressure and threat of accused persons. Before the court also, PW15 Amarjeet Singh has admitted that statement was read over to him by learned Metropolitan Magistrate. So, it cannot be said that he was not aware about the contents of the statement, but during so many years, he did not raise any objection nor made any complaint that he made statement U/s. 164 of CrPC under the pressure and threat of the accused persons against his parents and police, which shows that he has made improvements and has deposed against the accused persons due to enmity as accused Ram Rati got registered a case U/s. 365/34 of IPC against the parents of PW15 Amarjeet Singh.
PW15 has also admitted that there was no restriction for anyone to visit the temple. So, the testimony of PW15 Amarjeet Singh does not inspire any confidence regarding his wrongful confinement by the accused persons either in the temple, in Vrindavan or in Nathupura. He cannot be believed in any manner. Accordingly, prosecution has not been able to prove offence U/s. 342/34 of IPC against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts, for which, they are acquitted.
Findings qua offence U/s. 366 of IPC:
Section 366 of IPC deals with kidnapping, abduction or inducement of a woman to compel her for marriage.
Kidnapping from lawful guardianship means, whosoever takes or entices SC No. 12/02 62/70 any minor under the age of 18 years, if female, out of the keeping of the lawful guardianship of such minor, without the consent of such guardian, is said to have kidnapped such minor from lawful guardianship.
Abduction means, whosoever by force compels, or by any deceitful means induces any person to go from any place, is said to abduct that person.
This charge is only in respect of Lakhbir Kaur.
PW2 Lakhbir Kaur has not supported the case of prosecution in any manner. She has stated that she and her family used to visit Maa Kalyug Nashini temple at Mukundpur. She and her brother Gurpal has great respect for the temple. Gurpal had stayed at the temple, at times overnight. Neither she nor her brother Gurpal were ever forcibly detained in the temple by any person. PW2 has also denied that accused persons forcibly married her with accused Satpal. She has stated that she married with Satpal at her own free will. PW5 Charanjeet Kaur and PW6 Swaran Singh, parents of PW2 Lakhbir Kaur have stated that she was kept in the temple by the accused persons and the accused persons demanded a sum of Rs. 10 lacs against the release of their children. They were not allowed to meet with their children.
Learned defence counsel has contended that firstly it is to be seen, whether at that time, she was less than 18 years or not. Complaint Ex. PW5/A was lodged in September 2001. Incidents are two years back i.e. from September 99 to September 2001. According to the opinion of doctor dated 20/09/2001, she was more than 19 years. According to her MLC Ex. PW10/A, she herself disclosed to the doctor that she married a boy at her own free will one year back and has been living with him since then, which shows that her marriage took place near about 17/09/2000. So, in view of the opinion of the doctor, she must have been aged about 18 years. So, at the time of marriage, she was major and PW2 Lakhbir Kaur has nowhere stated that prior to her marriage, she was compelled to marry any person against her will or she was forced or seduced to illicit intercourse. Learned defence counsel has further contended that in view of the above, prosecution has not SC No. 12/02 63/70 been able to prove offence U/s. 366 of IPC against the accused persons in any manner.
In view of above discussion, it has already been held that Lakhbir Kaur was aged about 23 years. Hence, she was not minor in any manner at that time. PW2 Lakhbir Kaur has not supported the case of prosecution in any manner that she was kidnapped, abducted or was induced by the accused persons or she was compelled by the accused persons to marry with accused Satpal. Rather, she has stated that she has married with accused Satpal at her own will. Not only this, she has also filed a writ about all these facts, copy of which is Ex. PW2/D1. She has also stated that she did not give any statement as recorded by the IO. So, prosecution has not been able to prove offence U/s. 366 of IPC against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts, for which, they are acquitted. Findings qua offence U/s. 506 Part-II of IPC:
PW2 Lakhbir Kaur has nowhere stated that she was ever threatened or her parents were threatened by the accused persons in any manner. PW5 Charanjeet Kaur has nowhere stated that she was threatened by the accused persons at any time and in any manner and even when she was again examined after the arrest of accused Krishan Kumar (PO), she has not stated anything about any threat given by the accused persons to them. PW6 Swaran Singh has stated in his statement, when he was again examined after the arrest of accused Krishan Kumar (PO), that once accused krishan Kumar threatened him to shoot him and his wife.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that no date, time and place has been given by PW6 Swaran Singh as to when he was threatened by accused Krishan Kumar to shoot them.
On the other hand, learned Addl. PP has contended that PW6 Swaran Singh has not been cross examined by learned defence counsel on this aspect. So, the testimony of PW6 Swaran Singh in this respect is unshaken and unrebutted. PW14 Gurpal Singh has stated that they were confined by the accused persons and SC No. 12/02 64/70 were kept at different places. The accused persons at the instance of Mata Nomita also threatened and demanded money from his parents. PW14 has further stated that they gave their statements against their parents as they were already threatened by the accused persons that if they will give any statement against them, then they will kill their parents. PW14 has further stated that he gave his statement Ex. PW14/A recorded U/s. 164 of CrPC under threat of the accused persons.
Learned defence counsel has contended that regarding the part of the statement of PW14 Gurpal Singh that the accused persons at the instance of Mata Nomita also threatened and demanded money from his parents is not appearing in his statement recorded U/s. 161 CrPC and in statement recorded U/s. 164 of CrPC, PW14 Gurpal Singh has deposed against the police and his parents. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate had asked some questions before recording his statement and after satisfying himself, learned Metropolitan Magistrate recorded statement of PW14 Gurpal Singh that he was deposing the facts at his own free will and without any pressure from any side.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that if PW14 Gurpal Singh was under threat or was under any pressure, then he could have disclosed the same to learned Metropolitan Magistrate before recording his statement U/s. 164 of CrPC or even if at that time he did not disclose the same, then he could have disclosed the same later on to any higher authority or to the Court before appearing as a witness in 2009. Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW14 Gurpal Singh has not made any complaint in between 2002 to 2009 that he gave statement U/s. 164 of CrPC under the pressure and threat of the accused persons in 2002. So, witness cannot be believed in any manner.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that charge against the accused persons is that they criminally intimidated children Lakhbir Kaur and Amarjeet Singh. PW15 Amarjeet Singh has admitted that he did not tell to the police in statement recorded U/s. 161 of CrPC that accused persons threatened them SC No. 12/02 65/70 not to say anything against them, otherwise they will kill their parents. Learned defence counsel has further contended that same is a major improvement.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that in complaint Ex. PW5/A, complainant Charanjeet Kaur had alleged that one day, Ram Rati had seen them meeting with Maya Goyal and at the instance of Nomita, Krishan Kumar ans Satpal along with 4/5 persons came to their house with guns etc. and she and her husband were threatened on the point of guns and demanded Rs. 10 lacs and also asked them to vacate the house and only thereafter her children will be released. They further threatened that if matter is reported to the police, then they both will be killed. Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW5 Charanjeet Kaur has not deposed these facts before the Court that accused Krishan Kumar and Satpal had come to her house with guns alongwith 4/5 persons and she and her husband were threatened on the point of gun. They demanded Rs. 10 lacs and also asked to vacate the house. So, this part of complaint Ex. PW5/A is not proved by complainant PW5 Charanjeet Kaur in any manner. PW5 Charanjeet Kaur has nowhere stated in her examination that at any time, accused persons had visited her house. So, PW5 Charanjeet Kaur cannot be believed in this respect in any manner.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that similarly, PW6 Swaran Singh has also not stated anything in respect of this part of the complaint during his deposition before the court. So, prosecution has not been able to prove offence U/s. 506 Part-II of IPC against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts.
In view of above discussion as PW2 Lakhbir Kaur has not supported the case of prosecution, so, it cannot be said that accused persons had threatened PW2 Lakhbir Kaur at any time. PW5 Charanjeet Kaur although has alleged threatening to them by accused Krishan Kumar and Satpal, who visited their house with guns and 4/5 persons and threatened them to pay Rs. 10 lacs and also to vacate the house, but PW5 Charanjeet Kaur has not deposed this part of the complaint before the court in her examination. So, she has not been able to prove the threat in any manner.SC No. 12/02 66/70
PW6 Swaran Singh has stated that once accused Krishan Kumar threatened him to shoot him and his wife, but no date, time and place has been given nor it was stated so earlier by PW6 Swaran Singh, when initially he was examined as a witness before the court. Rather, he has stated this before the court, when he was reexamined after the arrest of accused Krishan Kumar (PO), which shows that he has made improvement in this respect. So, he cannot be relied upon in any manner and cannot be believed.
Similarly, PW14 Gurpal Singh and PW15 Amarjeet Singh have changed their statements again and again. They have contradicted each other and with other witnesses and have made material improvements in their statements. So, they can also not be relied upon in any manner. Both PW14 and PW15 have not made any complaint that they were threatened by the accused persons before recording their statements U/s. 164 of CrPC in between 2002 to 2009 and even between 99 to 2001 when PW5 Charanjeet Kaur had lodged a complaint with the police Ex. PW5/A. Both PW14 Gurpal Singh and PW15 Amarjeet Singh have twisted the facts against the accused persons after so many years and have made improvements, which were not told by them in their statements recorded U/s. 161 CrPC or recorded U/s. 164 of CrPC. They cannot be relied upon in any manner. Witnesses PW5 Charanjeet Kaur, PW6 Swaran Singh, PW14 Gurpal Singh and PW15 Amarjet Singh do not inspire any confidence and they have motive to depose against the accused persons due to enmity as accused Ram Rati got registered a case U/s. 365/34 of IPC prior to this case against the parents of PW14 and PW15. Accused Ram Rati was kidnapped on 27/06/00, whereas complaint has been given by PW5 Charanjeet Kaur on 04/09/2001.
Even PW6 Swaran Singh has deposed motively in this respect that the FIR, which was got registered by accused Ram Rati was subsequent to this FIR, which is contrary to the facts. During that period, children of PW5 Charanjeet Kaur and PW6 Swaran Singh resided with the accused persons at their own free will being major. So, PW5 and PW6 have reason to depose against the accused persons SC No. 12/02 67/70 due to enmity and since the alleged recovery of PW14 Gurpal Singh and PW15 Amarjeet Singh in the intervening night of 14.15/12/2002, they are residing with their parents and have deposed before the court in the year 2009 onwards, shows that PW5 and PW6 were having sufficient time to influence the minds of PW14 and PW15 to depose against the accused persons, which is evident from the major contradictions and improvements made by the witnesses. Accordingly, prosecution has not been able to prove offence U/s. 506 Part II of IPC against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts, for which, they are acquitted. Findings qua offence U/s. 120B of IPC:
According to complaint Ex. PW5/A, complainant Charanjeet Kaur has alleged that at the instance of Mata Nomita, her son Gurpal Singh left the house and started residing in the temple. After sometime, when she visited the temple with her daughter Lakhbir Kaur and Amarjeet Singh, then Mata Nomita ordered that both the children will not come out of the ashram and will stay there. When she resisted, then at the instance of Mata Nomita, accused Ram Rati, Krishan Kumar and one Satpal gave beatings to her and thrown her out of the ashram and detained forcibly her daughter Lakhbir Kaur and son Amarjeet Singh. She started weeping and came to her house and informed her husband.
Another instance, as alleged by the complainant, is that accused Krishan Kumar and Satpal came to her house along with 4/5 persons with guns and on the point of guns, she and her husband were threatened by both to kill them. They demanded Rs. 10 lacs and also asked to vacate the house and only thereafter their children will be released. They further threatened that if the matter is reported to the police, then they will be killed.
Learned defence counsel has contended that PW5 Charanjeet Kaur has deposed about the keeping of both the children Lakhbir Kaur and Amarjeet Singh by accused persons, against whom, they demanded Rs. 10 lacs, but PW5 Charanjeet Kaur has not deposed about the visit of accused Krishan Kumar and Satpal with 4/5 SC No. 12/02 68/70 persons, who threatened them and demanded Rs. 10 lacs and also asked to vacate the house.
Similarly, PW6 Swaran Singh has simply stated that accused Ram Rati told him that all the three children Lakhbir Kaur, Gurpal Singh and Amarjeet will stay in the Ashram and he was not permitted to meet his children. He has nowhere stated that accused persons asked for Rs. 10 lacs against the release of the children. PW6 Swaran Singh has also not deposed about visit of accused Krishan Kumar and Satpal with 4/5 persons and regarding threatening by the accused persons.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW1 Neetu and PW2 Lakhbir Kaur have not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. Both these witnesses have not deposed anything against the accused persons. PW14 Gurpal Singh and PW15 Amarjeet Singh have stated that they were influenced by the accused persons, which does not mean that accused persons entered into any criminal conspiracy to commit an act illegally or to commit an illegal act in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy. Learned defence counsel has further contended that depositions of PW14 Gurpal Singh and PW15 Amarjeet Singh regarding their detaining in Delhi at Nathupura and in Vrindavan are improvements. So, they cannot be considered to prove criminal conspiracy.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that criminal conspiracy can be seen from the conduct of the accused persons, but PW1 Neetu and PW2 Lakhbir Kaur have not supported the case of the prosecution, PW12 Rakesh Pal and PW13 Maya have also not supported the case of prosecution and PW14 Gurpal Singh and PW15 Amarjeet Singh have made improvements, so, they cannot be believed in any manner. PW5 Charanjeet Kaur and PW6 Swaran Singh have also contradicted each other regarding the forceful detaining of the children by the accused persons at the instance of Mata Nomita. So, prosecution has not been able to prove offence U/s. 120B of IPC against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts.
From the depositions of the witnesses and their statements recorded by SC No. 12/02 69/70 the police and by the court shows that PW5 Charanjeet Kaur and PW6 Swaran Singh started visiting the temple due to their religious sentiments with their children PW2 Lakhbir Kaur, PW14 Gurpal Singh and PW15 Amarjeet Singh. During that period, all the children were major. So, hearing the religious discourses, they started residing in the temple to do Karsewa, which was not unnatural. The only fact is that they stayed there for about two years for Karsewa. They were never detained nor were illegally confined during this period. PW2 Lakhbir Kaur married with accused Satpal and PW1 Neetu married with PW14 Gurpal Singh. They both married each other voluntarily without any objection from any side being major. So, it cannot be said that accused persons entered into any criminal conspiracy to influence the minds of PW2, PW14 and PW15 for their stay in the temple and to do karsewa. They were major at that time, so, they were having capacity and understanding to analyse the situation, which shows that due to their religious sentiments, they started doing karsewa in the temple at their own. They were not confined or detained in the temple in any manner or at any other place. Their movements were not restricted during these two years, which shows that accused persons did not enter into any criminal conspiracy.
In view of the above discussion, the prosecution has not been able to prove offence U/s. 120B of IPC against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts. Accordingly, they are acquitted for the offence U/s. 120B of IPC.
Announced in the Open Court on .
Dated 18th of September, 2010 (Virender Kumar Goyal)
Additional Sessions Judge
Fast Track Court
Rohini : Delhi
SC No. 12/02 70/70
SC No. 12/02 71/70