Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs Mhonchumo @ John S/O Adamo Latha R/O F ... on 30 April, 2014

IN   THE   COURT   OF   SH.   DINESH   BHATT,   ASJ­07   (CENTRAL)/   TIS 
                          HAZARI COURTS, DELHI




Sessions Case No.:­31/14
Unique ID no.:­02401R0191582012



State Vs    Mhonchumo @ John S/o Adamo Latha R/o F 79­80, Gandhi Vihar, 
            Timar Pur Delhi  
            Permanent Add.­Vill. Ralan Wokha Nagaland & H. No. 15, Lengrijan 
            Dhemapur Nagaland



Case arising out of:­


            FIR no.              : 15/2012
            Police Station     : Timar Pur
            Under Section    : 364A/368/120B/323 IPC


Date of Institution                : 16/05/2012
Date on which order was reserved   : 29/04/2014
Date of Decision                   : 30/04/2014



J U D G M E N T:

­

1. This is a case U/s 364A/368/120B IPC of criminal conspiracy for abducting Rakesh Kumar by the accused person thereby having compelled the family members of the victim to pay ransom amount of Rs. 5 lakh to the accused persons.

SC no.:­31/14 Page 1/51

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 29/01/2012 complaint was filed by Kamal Kishore stating that their brother Rakesh Kumar (victim) had left for Guwahati on 19/01/2012 and had communicated with his family till 23/01/2012. Thereafter, there was no communication with victim. On 29/01/2012 they received a ransom call on their land line asking them to deposit Rs. 5 lakhs for safe release of Rakesh in the account to be conveyed at a later time. FIR was lodged. IO on investigation was told by Kanchan wife of victim that she had received call from an unknown person giving the account number of R. Maranag of SBI Bank for deposit of the ransom money. Accordingly, instrument was fitted on the landline of complainant. On inquiry the said account was found to be of SBI Bank Senapati, Manipur. IO and HC Parveen left by train to Senapati Manipur for search of victim and accused. IO was informed by SHO that team of District Operation Cell alongwith ATO and Mukesh brother of victim had already reached Senapati Manipur. Kamal Kishore conveyed on phone that his father Laxman Ram due to fear of life of Rakesh had deposited ransom money of Rs. 5 lakh in the account number 31267930722 in the name of R.Joseph on 01/02/2012 from Delhi Nirakari Branch. The said account number was found to be of SBI Lairouching Branch, District Senapati. IO obtained documents from bank. Address of accused R. Joseph was also found. It was also found that on the same day Rs. 4,95,000/­ had already been withdrawn from the said account. IO with the help of Operation Cell Staff, ATO Timar Pur and Mukesh Kumar inquired about the house of R. Joseph at Maram Bazar. There it was reported that there was some suspicious activities going on in the house of Attekoh accomplice of R. Joseph. Raiding party was prepared and the house of Attekoh was raided, where victim Rakesh was found sitting on the floor. Accused Mhonchumo was arrested at the site but accused Attekoh managed to flee from the back door. Victim Rakesh revealed that accused Mhonchumo was his friend and in conspiracy with other accused R. SC no.:­31/14 Page 2/51 Joseph and Attekoh had called him to Dimapur from Delhi and thereafter, abducted him. Search of accused was carried out and Rs. 50,000/­ was recovered from him. Accused disclosed that the said amount was his share out of the ransom money of Rs. 5 lakh received by them. Accused was arrested. Search of the house of Attekoh was carried out and from beneath the bed, two bank debit cards belonging to Kamal Kishore brother of victim were recovered. Victim disclosed that the said cards had been snatched by the accused persons by giving beatings to him and had also withdrawn money from the same. Victim Rakesh had injury on his leg and was therefore, sent with the staff in care and custody to PS Senapati. IO alongwith accused and brother of victim Mukesh searched for the other accused but were not found. Site plan was prepared. Accused was arrested. Disclosure statement of accused was recorded and accused had admitted the guilt and had stated that they were members of Extremist Group NSCNK and under planning had called the victim from Delhi for abducting him. Medical of victim and accused was carried out. 05 days transit remand of accused was obtained from Ld. CJM, District Senapati Manipur. Further 02 days police remand was obtained from Delhi. Recording instruments fixed at the landline of house of the victim at Delhi was checked but due to improper operation no recording was found. Complainant had submitted his phone memory card wherein some recording in regard to the incident was found and was taken into possession. Bank deposit slip of deposit of ransom money was seized and memo prepared. Victim was admitted in hospital for treatment.

3. Record of the bank branch and call details were obtained. Rs. 50,000/­ recovered as ransom had been photographed and on furnishing indemnity bond were released on superdari. Other co­accused could not be arrested and supplementary charge sheet was prayed to be allowed to be filed as and when the other accused were arrested. Prosecution had examined 20 witnesses.

SC no.:­31/14 Page 3/51

4. PW1 Kamal Kishore is the complainant and the elder brother of the victim and stated that on 19/01/2012 he was informed that victim Rakesh Kumar had left for Deemapur, Guwahati, Assam by train and had been dropped by his younger brother Mukesh Kumar at 07:30 p.m. at Old Delhi Railway station. Till 23/01/2012 they had talks with the victim. Thereafter, the mobile phone of the victim had been switched off. On 29/01/2012 in the morning at 07:30 a.m. a phone call was received on landline phone and the victim had informed that he had been kidnapped, the other voice which was also audible on the phone was saying that the victim was with them and demanded Rs. 5 lakhs or otherwise they would kill the victim. Complainant informed the neighbours, parents who were away at native place at Jodhpur. He had visited PS Timar Pur and lodged complaint Ex. PW1/A. He had handed over photo of victim to the Police. Police recorded statement of wife of the victim informing that she had further received ransom call wherein the caller had given her an account number for deposit of ransom money. During investigation he was given mobile phone by the Police with recording system. Later on the memory card of that phone was handed over to the Police and was seized by the Police. Victim was rescued by the Police and he had got released cash of Rs. 50,000/­ recovered from the accused on superdari Ex. PW1/B. He had signed on the details of the currency notes of Rs. 50,000/­ vide Ex. PW1/C and seizure memo of the memory card was Ex. PW1/D. In cross­examination he stated that he was residing with his brother in a joint family. His father was employed with Indian Railways. He was working as salesman with Cream Bell Ice Cream and earning Rs. 8,000/­ p.m. Victim was dealing in scrap articles. He denied that they all brothers had managed drama to extract money from his father.

5. PW2 stated that on 04/02/2012 at 11:17 p.m. he had examined victim Rakesh Kumar vide MLC Ex. PW2/A and was referred to ortho for further treatment and SC no.:­31/14 Page 4/51 management.

6. PW3 stated that on the basis of rukka she had recorded FIR of the case Ex. PW3/A on 29/01/2012, the original rukka and FIR was handed over to SI Devender Dahiya for investigation.

7. PW4 stated that on 05/02/2012 patient Rakesh Kumar was admitted in the hospital for treatment of fracture left proximal tibia and patient had been discharged vide discharge summary Ex. PW4/A.

8. PW5 Mukesh is the other brother of the victim and stated that on 19/01/2012 he had gone to drop his brother victim at Old Delhi Railway Station. On coming to know about kidnapping of his brother they had lodged FIR. On 30/01/2012 he alongwith police official had gone to Deemapur where he had made local inquiries with the help of local Police officials. On 02/02/2012 Police officials of Delhi also reached at Deemapur and then they raided the premises where victim was found in the custody of the accused alongwith another person who had run away. Rs. 50,000/­ was recovered from accused and 02 ATM cards were recovered at the instance of accused from the underneath the mattress in the room. Rs. 50,000/­ were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/A and ATM cards were seized vide Ex. PW5/B. Site plan was Ex. PW5/C. The accused was arrested vide Ex. PW5/D and the personal search memo was Ex. PW5/E and all the said documents were signed by him at point A. After completing investigation he had come back to Delhi. Currency notes have already been released. The other seized articles i.e. 02 ATM cards seized by IO were Ex. P1.

In cross­examination he stated that victim did not tell him as to where he was going and for how many days and also had not inquired about the same from the victim. Besides him, other police officials and local police of Manipur was with them, at the time of SC no.:­31/14 Page 5/51 raid. It was dark and he had not noticed any market nearby. The Police had knocked on the door and the door was opened from inside but he had not noticed the person who had opened the door as he was behind the police party. He had come to know about kidnapping of the victim from his brother who had received the phone call on their landline. On the request of ATO Suraj Pal he had gone to Guwahati by air and from Guwahati to Deemapur by train. He had not stayed at Guwahati. The air ticket were booked by Kamal Kishore. From Deemapur Railway Station they had gone to Senapati in Tata Winger vehicle which was the available mode of transport. He was carrying his mobile no. 9990408397 at the said time which was not active at present. Police had not given him any information about their plan for rescue of the victim. He was only told to accompany the police officials. 12­13 police officers had left the local Police Station, Senapati in two vehicles for the raid. It took about 1­½ hrs. to reach the house from where the victim was rescued. They had left Police Station between 1­2 p.m. The lane was narrow therefore, vehicles stopped at the distance of about 100 mtrs. and the raiding party reached the place of rescue on foot. It was not dark when the Police had reached the said place. Some sunlight was still left. He had entered the room where victim was kept but could not tell the dimensions of the house. According to him the house was small and not big however, the door size was normal. Police officials were having revolvers, pistols and local Police officials were having guns. Police officials were in civil clothes and local Police officials were in uniform. The door of the said house was opened forcibly by the Police. On seeing him victim had shouted and called his name. The accused was sitting on the bed and the other accused present in the room managed to flee from the said room. One Inspector had tried to chase him. He with the help of others had shifted victim to the place where the vehicles of the Police was parked. Rs. 50,000/­ was recovered from the accused and ATM were recovered from beneath the mattresses in the said room. Accused SC no.:­31/14 Page 6/51 Mhonchumo had also tried to escape but was apprehended. Personal search of the accused was conducted in the said room as well as in the Police Station. Accused was in the other room. They had remained in the local Police Station for about half an hour thereafter, had gone alongwith victim and Police officials to a hotel. He denied that when he alongwith Police team from Delhi had reached Senapati they had received a call from victim Rakesh. He also denied that he alongwith Police team met victim and accused who were travelling in Taxi in Senapati or that no raid as claimed by them was conducted.

9. PW6 is the victim who has stated that he had met accused in 2011 when he was visiting one beauty parlor run by Ms. Rupa. In December, 2011 accused had invited him to Nagaland. He visited Shilong, Manipur and other place for scrap business but was told that due to Christmas festival the deal could be finalized only in the 2 nd week of January, 2012. As he could not wait, he came back. He again received a call from the accused asking him to come for scrap business. He reached Deemapur on 23/01/2012. He did not find the accused but accused told him to follow instructions and on his instruction he reached Maram Bazar. Accused received him at the bus stop and on the pretext of smoking cigarette he took him to a lonely street where at about 02:00 to 03:00 p.m. one Red colour Maruti car came and 2 person on gun point abducted both victim and accused in the Car and thereafter, drove them towards Senapati. On way due to military and police barricades they had to return and therefore, took 'U' turn towards the Maram Bazar and he and present accused were locked in a room. Accused remained with him till sunset and thereafter, was taken away. From the next day a particular routine was followed. Accused was brought to victim's room where he remained for 2­3 hours. On the next day Attekoh and another co­accused tortured him and took his ATM cards, purse, cell phone. The said two accused persons had conveyed that they would ask for ransom money after elections were over. Thereafter, the accused persons SC no.:­31/14 Page 7/51 called on his landline at Delhi. He also made call from his mobile. On occasions when the accused Mhonchumo and he were alone he had suggested to the accused to escape from the place but accused Mhonchumo refused stating that the other accused would kill them. On a day about 2­3 days prior to date of his rescue, he had tried to flee from the said place but in the event fell down and received injuries. On hearing noise of his fall, accused Mhonchumo alongwith other accused had caught him and threatened him. Accused Mhonchumo scolded him that he had almost failed their kidnapping plan. Accused hit him with iron rod on the same place where he had received injuries on his leg. He came to know that ransom money had been deposited and accused R. Joseph withdrew the money from his account. After this all the accused person were in dilemma whether to release or kill him. Accused R. Joseph had paid Rs. 50,000/­ to accused Mhonchumo as his share of the ransom money. In the meantime Police conducted raid and arrested the accused. The other co­accused Attekoh however, managed to flee. ATM were also recovered from beneath the mattress from the room .

In cross­examination he stated that he was educated upto 12th class with ITI in Electric field. He was dealing as commission agent but stopped dealing in scrap as it was not profitable. He had not cleared one paper of ITI therefore, could not work in electric filed. He was married on 2001, was not making fixed contribution towards family but stated that he was having sufficient income to meet the expenses of his family. He did not have any savings. He used to visit massage parlour of Ms. Rupa as a client who was charging Rs. 400/­ to Rs. 500/­ per visit. He did not know if Mr. Ram Kumar was brother of Ms. Rupa. He denied that Mr. Ram Kumar had got employment in catering business. Accused Mhonchumo had told him that he was studying MBA and had 4­5 meetings prior to the incident in question. He used to sit in the room of the accused while waiting for his turn at SC no.:­31/14 Page 8/51 the massage parlour. Accused had offered him to get him a deal in scrap through his uncle who was in defence services in Nagaland and called him to Deemapur Nagaland by making call on his cell phone. In December, 2011 during his first visit accused came alone to receive him at Deemapur Railway Station and stayed in a hotel booked by accused. Accused had taken him to Imphal but could not arrange any meeting and told him that due to Christmas festival he had to wait. As he could not wait he returned to Delhi in 1st week of January, 2012. After 2­3 days he again received calls from the accused and he was forcing him to come to Deemapur as he stated that only because of him he had stayed at Deemapur and his uncle was free. On the next occasion no one had come to receive him at Deemapur Railway Station. He denied the suggestion that he had planned his fake kidnapping and for this purpose was using mobile no. 8826567354. He also denied that he had requested Mhonchumo to go to Maram Bazar and to stay with Mr. Attekoh and to look for scrap as accused was from the same area. He also denied that on the second occasion accused took him in Taxi from Railway Station to the house of Attekoh at Maram Bazar. He denied that he was knowing Attekoh very well. He stated that he had seen the photograph of Attekoh in his house and the family members of Attekoh were also residing therefore, he had come to know that he was held captive in the house of Attekoh. There were 02 rooms in the house of Attekoh. He denied that Ms. Rupa, Mr Ram Kuamar and Mr. Attekoh had hatched a plan of fake kidnapping for getting from his father for starting scrap business. He also denied that for this purpose he required an innocent person who could be used as a credible witness. Therefore, had trapped accused Mhonchumo by falsely promising him good share in the business of scrap. He also denied that he hatched a plan with Mr. Attekoh to show the kidnapping to create an impression in the mind of accused Mhonchumo that he had actually been kidnapped. He also denied that while staying at Pural Village he accidentally slipped SC no.:­31/14 Page 9/51 while jumping from a height and sustained injury. He also denied that he was under

intoxication therefore, had fell down and suffered injuries. He denied that after he came to know that his father had transferred the money. He alongwith accused was returning from Pural Village to Deemapur via Kohima by Car and during this period he received call from his brother Mukesh who told him to stopped at Senapati and there Police party met them. He also denied that on seeing Police party he put all blame on accused Mhonchumo in order to save himself. He stated that on instruction of Mr. Attekoh. Mr. Joseph had made call at landline no. and talked with his brother Kamal. He had made 10­15 calls on the asking of the kidnappers. He also stated that the kidnappers talked in English language but that he was not conversant to the English language and only vaguely understood what was being said. All calls were made from his mobile phone. He stayed for about one week before he was rescued and accused used to beat him during this period. There was no toilet in the house of Attekoh and was given a bucket for easing himself. Accused used to remove the said bucket. No medical aid was provided to him. Due to injury on his left leg he became immobile and could not walk. On a day prior to rescue at 04:00­05:00 p.m. he came to know from the accused Mr. Attekoh/Joseph that the ransom amount had been deposited by his father. Accused had planned to kill him on receiving the ransom money and feared that they would be exposed if he was not killed. The time of day of raid was day time as sun was there in the sky. The room of the door was shut which was opened by the Police. He stated that the room in which he was kept was approximately 20 x 20 feet. He stated that Police officers, his brother and accused remained in the room for about 15 mins. Police official did not conduct any proceedings and one of the police official had run after the accused who had escaped from the room. Court had explained the question about proceedings conducted by the Police in his presence and the witness answered in the negative. It took him 30 mins. to reach the SC no.:­31/14 Page 10/51 Police Station. They came out at about 03:30 p.m. from the room where he was captured. He remained for 1­½ hrs. in the Police Station and thereafter, was kept in a hotel. No medical aid was provided to him during this period. He and accused were taken to hospital on the next day and thereafter, to the court. When they reached the court he kept sitting in the van as Magistrate came to see him in the van. Magistrate had asked him as to what has happened and was also asked to identify the accused which he had identified. He denied that neither Rs. 50,000/­ nor ATM cards were recovered from the accused in his presence. He stated that he could not give statement U/s 164 Cr. PC as he could not come to court due to leg injury which required skin grafting. He denied that the statement U/s 164 Cr. PC was not recorded as he did not want the truth to come out.

10. PW7 stated that he alongwith PW5 had left for Deemapur by plane. On phone SHO had instructed him to reach District Senapati Manipur. On 31/01/2012 they reached Senapati and had a meeting with SHO. On 01/02/2012 they had a meeting with SP of the District. On 02/02/2012 IO and HC parveen met them. Inspector Rohtash and 02 HC and 02 Constable also reached Senapati, from there they had gone to SBI Maram Bazar where IO come to know that the ransom amount had been deposited in the the of R. Joseph and the same had also been withdrawn. They had visited house of R. Joseph which was found locked. And on inquiry they came to know that one outsider was present in the house of Attekoh who was an associate of R. Joseph. Police party immediately raided the said house where victim Rakesh was sitting on the floor, accused Mhonchumo was also present in the room. Attekoh managed to flee from the back door of the house. IO apprehended accused Mhonchumo and recovered Rs. 50,000/­. Accused Mhonchumo had told that the said Rs. 50,000/­ was his share of the ransom money. On Search of the house two ATM cards were also recovered which was identified by victim Rakesh. Personal search of accused was SC no.:­31/14 Page 11/51 carried out and articles were seized. Victim Rakesh was injured and he alongwith Police staff was shifted to PS Senapati. Thereafter, Police made efforts to search R. Joseph and R. Maranag Rouba but could not find the same. IO prepared site plan on the instance of the accused Mhonchumo and also recorded his disclosure statement where he confessed that he alongwith his associate R. Joseph, Attekoh and R. Maranag Rouba with planning had abducted victim Rakesh in order to get ransom money. Accused Mhonchumo was arrested and the entire Police party came to Police Station Senapati. Recovery memo of currency notes and ATM cards were prepared. Accused Mhonchumo was produced before the Court of CJM, Imphal and 05 days transit remand was obtained. Keeping in view the condition of victim Rakesh and circumstances in Imphal they alongwith accused Mhonchumo came to Delhi by air and reached PS Timar Pur. IO had recorded his statement. He identified two ATM cards Ex. P1 to be the same recovered from the room in the house of Attekoh. He also identified the photocopy of the currency notes Ex. P2 to be the same which was recovered from the accused.

In cross­examination he stated that on directions of Senior officers he had joined the investigation of the case and had left for Deemapur alongwith brother of victim. He had discussions with IO as well as SHO. They reached Deemapur at about 02:30 a.m. on the intervening night of 30­31/01/2012. SHO had told him in the morning of 31/01/2012 that due to some development there was a possibility of victim being in Senapati Manipur. They reached Senapati Manipur and reported to SHO PS Senapati. Till that date he was not having any knowledge of victim's mobile no. but stated that brother of victim was with him who was knowing victim's and his family's mobile numbers. On 02/02/2012 IO had informed him that they were reaching PS Senapati. The other team of special staff also reached on 02/02/2012. He denied that there was no branch of SBI in Maram Bazar Senapati. He stated SC no.:­31/14 Page 12/51 that R. Joseph's address was of Maram Bazar which was found locked. The medical store shown at point C in Ex. PW5/C was run by wife of R. Joseph. They had got information about R. Joseph's account and of withdrawal of ransom money from the bank. The raiding party consisted of 14­15 local Police personnel besides the member of Police team of Delhi. The entire Police team of Delhi was in civil dress while local Police was in uniform. They reached Attekoh's house in about 1 hr. i.e. about 06:30­07:00 p.m. It was dark and street lights were on. They had parked their vehicle and approached Attekoh's house to a lane which was at the distance of about 50­80 mtrs. from the place of parking. Attekoh's house was of normal size and had no boundary wall on front. He was carrying mobile phone no. 9868651814. Inspector Rohtash and Devender Dahiya knocked the door. Nobody opened the door and IO and Inspector Rohtash pushed opened the door. Victim was sitting and accused was standing in the small room which had a door at the back side. 2­3 of Police officers had tried to chase R. Joseph but could not succeed. There was also a bucket in the room but he did not remember having seen any hunter, iron or rod. He did not remember whether the bucket was carrying any potty or not. They had not fired any gun. He did not remember about the personal search of the accused but have knowledge about the recovery of Rs. 50,000/­ from the possession of accused Mhonchumo. No independent witness from the locality was engaged before raiding the house. He denied that they had already met victim Rakesh and accused Mhonchumo on 01/02/2012 at Senapati when they were returning back to Delhi. He denied that R. Joseph was not a member of banned organization or was a respectable citizen earning livelihood from medical shop. He denied that they had falsely implicated accused Mhonchumo and R. Joseph in the kidnapping case. He denied that there had been a dispute and argument between him and IO on the one side and Inspector Rohtash from the other side in respect of falsely framing the present accused in the case. He denied SC no.:­31/14 Page 13/51 that victim had not suffered any injuries which required medical treatment. He stated that IO produced accused before the court of CJM and was called by the CJM who had instructed them to go back to Delhi by air or if they had gone by road there was chances that the R. Joseph's group could have tried to free accused and harm them. He denied that they had managed all their expenses in regard to their air fare, stay at Senapati from the amount of alleged ransom of victim. He denied that no notes were recovered from the accused.

11. PW8 is the father of the victim who has stated that he had deposited the amount of Rs. 5 lakhs in the account of R. Joseph of SBI from SBI Bank Nirankari Colony Branch and the number was told to him by the kidnapper for depositing the ransom amount. For deposit he had moved an application as the bank officials were reluctant to deposit huge amount in one transaction, he had concealed the true facts of kidnapping of his son and requested the bank to allow the deposit for treatment of his son. The pay in slip being Ex. PW8/A, seizure memo Ex. PW8/B and application being Ex. PW8/C. In cross­examination he stated that he was residing at the house of Nehru Vihar with his wife, 03 sons, 03 daughter­in­law, 03 grand­children and one daughter of his daughter in the joint family. All the three sons were earning. He was knowing that Rakesh was doing work of scrap on commission basis. He did not know anything about his work or dealing. He had received telephonic call from his son Kamal Kishore at 11:00 a.m.­12:00 noon informing about the kidnapping of his son. He had asked his son to get FIR registered. He stated that he did not remember about the name of the son who had informed him about the details of the ransom call regarding the account no. and the manner in which the ransom amount to be deposited. He reaffirmed that he had deposited Rs. 5 lakhs vide Ex.PW8/A. He admitted that he was informed about the ransom call of Rs. 5 lakhs by his son Kamal Kishore. He did not inform the Police about deposit of Rs. 5 lakh in the bank. He had taken SC no.:­31/14 Page 14/51 the slip on which account no. for deposit of Rs. 5 lakh was mentioned and after deposit he had destroyed the said slip. He denied that he had telephonic conversation with his son Rakesh Kr. on 01/02/2012 at 07:39 p.m. He also did not have any conversation with kidnappers either on mobile or landline. He denied that he was deposing falsely.

12. PW9 stated that they have received bank receipt of Rs. 5 lakhs from PW8 and had signed at point A & B.

13. PW10 is Kanchan wife of victim and stated that victim had left for Guwahati in January. She had talks with the Rakesh for 2­3 days and thereafter, did not received any call. At about 09:00 a.m. Kamal Kishore had received ransom call on their landline number and caller asked Kamal Kishore to give Rs. 5 lakh otherwise they would kill their husband Rakesh who had been kidnapped by them. On the same day at about 04:00 p.m. she again received a call and the caller gave her account number which was noted by her on piece of paper. Caller had told her to deposit Rs. 5 lakhs in the said account and further threatened not to disclose the said fact to the Police or otherwise they would kill Rakesh. Complainant Kamal Kishore had gone to Police Station to lodge the complaint and Police arrived at their home. He disclosed the said fact to them. Police made inquiries and recorded her statement. She also stated that her husband had left Delhi on 19/01/2012 and had telephonic contact till 23/01/2012.

In cross­examination stated that Rakesh had informed her about going to Guwahati but did not inform about the duration of stay. During the period from 23/01/2012 till rescue of her husband she did not have any telephonic conversation with him. After rescue Mukesh made her talk with the victim for reassurance that her husband was alright and coming back. She stated that she was not knowing accused Mhonchumo. On 23/01/2012 on her asking her husband Rakesh had told that he would be coming to Delhi within 1­2 SC no.:­31/14 Page 15/51 days. She had noted down the account no. provided by the caller which was handed over to Kamal Kishore when he had gone to the Police.

14. PW11 produced the record of mobile no. 9911819068 in the name of Kamal S/o Laxman Ram. Application form being Ex. PW11/A, call details between 12/01/2012 to 02/02/2012 being Ex. PW11/B and certificate under 65 Evidence Act being Ex. PW11/C. In cross­examination stated that call details Ex. PW11/B was complete record and no call details were missing from the same.

15. PW12 produced details of mobile no. 8826567354 to be in the name of Poonam W/o Raj Kumar alongwith identity proof. Application being Ex. PW12/A and call details for the 19/01/2012 to 02/02/2012 being Ex. PW12/B. Cell ID chart being Ex.PW12/C. Certificate U/s 65 (B) being Ex. PW12/D. In cross­examination stated that as per CDR, mobile no. 8826567354 was roaming in U.P. East and North East circle.

16. PW13 produced record relating to landline no. 23815774 in the name of Annu Devi. Form being Ex. PW13/A. As per record, the said telephone was working without outgoing facility from 19/01/2012 to 02/12/2012 and their reply to the inquiries of IO was Ex. PW13/B. In cross­examination stated that no request for observation of incoming calls of complainant's landline no. was made by IO or subscriber.

17. PW14 stated that he alongwith Inspector Rohtash Singh of Operation Cell North District and other officials had gone to District Senapati, Manipur where they met IO, ATO Suraj Pal and other official of PS Timar Pur alongwith Mukesh brother of the victim. They had left for investigation separately and again met at SBI Lairouching Distt. Senapati. SC no.:­31/14 Page 16/51 IO told that the kidnappers had withdrawn the ransom amount but had not released the victim. IO obtained the address of the account holder and searched the house of R. Joseph but could not locate the same. They were told that some suspicious activity were going on in the house of Attekoh who was friend of R. Joseph. They with the help of local police had raided the house but Attekoh managed to escape. Victim Rakesh was rescued and accused Mhonchumo present in court was found at the spot. Accused was apprehended and interrogated. He was arrested vide memo Ex. PW5/D. Personal search memo being Ex. PW5/E. Rs. 50,000/­ was recovered from the accused being the share of the ransom amount. Same was taken into possession vide Ex. PW5/A. Two ATM cards were also recovered from below the mattresses which were sealed, seizure memo being Ex.PW5/B. Victim had injuries and was sent to PS Senapati through Const. Sudhir and other police officials. Search of co­accused R. Joseph was also carried out but he was not fount out. Site plan on the pointing out of the accused was prepared. Accused was interrogated and disclosure statement was recorded. Accused Mhonchumo was produced before CJM and 05 days transit remand was obtained and they returned to Delhi. IO recorded his statement. He identified recovered ATM cards as Ex. P1, photocopy of currency notes Ex. P2 and has stated that the same was recovered from the accused.

In cross­examination stated that they left for Senapati, Manipur by air on 02/02/2012 at 03:00 a.m. and were accompanied by Inspector Rohtash, HC Yogender, another HC named Yogender and Const. Sudhir. All were carrying pistols. They reached Imphal Airport around 11:00­12:00 noon. From there they left for Senapati by road and reached at 02:30 p.m. He did not know the distance between Imphal and Senapati. They alongwith team had gone towards the lower side of Thana into the street of Senapati town. They were not told the place which was required to be visited at the said time. They had SC no.:­31/14 Page 17/51 reached Lairouching bank branch in the evening and met the other team at the said place. R. Joseph was searched in Maram Bazar. They had reached Attekoh's house around 05:00­06:00 p.m. there was no motorable road to the house of Attekoh and had to walk 100 mtrs. from the road to the house of Attekoh. The door of Attekoh's house was neither locked from inside or outside which was pushed by IO and Inspector Rohtash. There were two rooms with first room being empty. On entering the second room they found two people sitting on bed and one sitting on the floor. On seeing them Attekoh had fled from the window. Inspector Rohtash had chased Attekoh. Delhi Police were carrying pistols and local Police were carrying heavy weapons. Everything was visible inside in the natural light. IO searched accused Mhonchumo and the room but could not carry out other proceedings as large crowd gathered outside. Rs. 50,000/­ was recovered from the pocket of accused Mhonchumo and two ATM cards were recovered from beneath the mattresses. There was no other family member of Attekoh in the house. He denied that there was no recovery of Rs. 50,000/­ from the accused or that the said amount was implanted by them. Personal search and arrest memo was prepared at PS Senapati. He denied that Police had concocted a false story of kidnapping and falsely implicated the accused in the case.

18. PW15 stated that on 30/01/2012 he alongwith IO had gone to Deemapur for investigation. On reaching Deemapur they had talked with SHO. On his directions on 02/02/2012 they alongwith ATO Suraj Pal and other officials had gone to District Senapati from where IO and ATO's team had gone to SBI Lairouching Branch and thereafter, received the bank statement of R. Joseph from where it was verified that the ransom amount had been withdrawn. They had returned to Senapati and sensing danger to the victim had immediately reached Maram Bazar where on receiving information about suspicious activity visited the house of Attekoh accomplice of R. Joseph. There they found victim and accused SC no.:­31/14 Page 18/51 Mhonchumo. Attekoh had fled from the house. On search Rs. 50,000/­ was recovered from accused, two ATM cards were also recovered from the beneath the bed of Attekoh. Victim reported pain in his leg and was sent to PS Senapati. Accused was arrested, co­accused was searched but was not found. They returned to Senapati at night. Victim identified the accused and disclosed that as per plan they had kidnapped him. Site plan was prepared. Medical examination of both accused and victim was carried. They returned alongwith team and accused to Delhi. Victim Rakesh was rescued from the said house and accused Mhonchumo was found at the spot. He identified two ATMs Ex. P1. Photocopy of currency notes Ex. P2 stating that the same was recovered from accused.

In cross­examination stated that he had accompanied IO and left for Deemapur by Brahamputra mail from Old Delhi Railway Station. They both were carrying pistols. They reached Deemapur on 02/02/2012 at 06:00 a.m. They were told to proceed to Senapati. Account no. of R. Joseph was provided to victim's brother Mukesh Kumar and the information was with the IO. He admitted that he did not have any information about the account of R. Joseph till their arrival at PS Senapati. They left PS Senapati at 02­02:15 for Lairouching Branch SBI Bank. IO had informed him about the withdrawal of ransom amount from R. Joseph's account. They reached Maram Bazar around 06­07 p.m. It was dark at that time. There was no streetlight but there were house lights. Local person told them that the house belong to R. Joseph. Informer also told us about Attekoh's address. He admitted that they had reached Attekoh's house around 07:30 p.m. Attekoh's house had hill on one side, gali of houses on the other side, jungle on third side and residences of other person of forth side. The door of Attekoh's house was closed but was not latched either from inside or outside. IO had first entered alongwith Mukesh Kumar. He called the name of Attekoh who replied Yes. They entered the first room which was empty. He had seen accused SC no.:­31/14 Page 19/51 Mhonchumo and victim Rakesh sitting on the floor. He denied that they had not seen any person fleeing from the room. He stated that accused fled from the second room from its door which was opened but did not remember who had chased Attekoh. Chaser had returned in 05 mins. He had no knowledge of proceedings carried by IO in the room but had knowledge of recovery of Rs. 50,000/­. The search of house was carried out in his presence. Raid took place in about 30­45 mins and outside the house crowd of 50­60 people had gathered. The entire raiding party alongwith accused and victim went back to PS Senapati. He denied that they had stayed in guest house in PS Senapati. He also denied that there was quarrel; between ATO Suraj Pal and IO on one side and Inspector Rohtash on the other side in respect of falsely framing accused in the case. He denied that no information was provided to PS Senapati either before coming for investigation or after investigation at PS Senapati. He denied no proceedings were carried for requesting PS Senapati in respect of R. Joseph and Attekoh. He stated that disclosure statement was recorded at Attekoh's house at the time of raid. He denied that injuries of the victim were caused due to self fall and not due to any act of accused. He stated that he was not aware about any identification mark put on recovered notes. He denied that he was deposing falsely in regard to raid at Attekoh's house for rescue of victim. He denied that they had already met accused and victim at Senapati on 01/02/2012.

19. PW16 produced record relating to account no. 31227973336 maintained at SBI Senapati, Manipur Branch Ex. PW16/A and stated that same was issued by SBI Model Town on request of IO.

In cross­examination stated that certain transaction details like name of the account holder, address and branch name of the bank account of a person are accessible from any branch. But complete details cannot be accessed from all branches. There is no SC no.:­31/14 Page 20/51 limit for deposit of amount in cash in the account but for non home branch normally only Rs. 25,000/­ can be deposited in cash. The amount in excess can be deposited under discretion of the Branch Manager.

20. PW17 photographer stated that he had photographed sealed pulanda and thereafter, on opening of pulanda had taken photographs of currency notes of denomination of Rs. 500/­ each. Two CDs were Ex. PW17/A & Ex. PW17/A1 and photographs being Ex. PW17/B (colly).

21. PW18 produced the statement of account no. 32167930722 of R. Joseph of SBI Lairouching Distt. Senapati Branch code 9160 being Ex. PW18/A. As per the same, Rs. 5 lakh was deposited in the said account on 01/02/2012. The attested copy of deposit slip being Ex. PW18/B. As per record, amount was deposited by Laxman Ram and had submitted application Ex. PW8/C which was allowed at point X by the bank. The counter foil of the deposit being Ex. PW8/A.

22. PW19 Inspector Yashveer Singh stated that he was SHO PS Timar Pur. On 29/01/2012 on complaint of Kamal Kumar in respect of abduction of Rakesh Kumar for ransom had registered case U/s 364A IPC. The case was entrusted to SI Devender Dahiya. Complaint being Ex. PW1/A. During investigation he came to know that the account number mentioned in the complaint belonged to SBI Branch Senapati Manipur. The said fact was brought to the notice of senior officers and two Police parties were sent to Deemapur as well as Senapati for investigation. On 02/02/2012 complainant had informed him that Rs. 5 lakh had been paid to abductor in the account given to them by the abductor on the phone. The said information was immediately communicated to IO who was in Deemapur at the said time. After completion of the investigation and preparation of charge sheet, the same was SC no.:­31/14 Page 21/51 forwarded to the Court.

In cross­examination stated that on 29/01/2012 at around 03:00 p.m. alongwith his father Laxman Ram came to Police Station. He denied that jurisdiction in a kidnapping case was at a place from where the victim had been kidnapped or conveyed or rescued. He volunteered that Police was duty bound to register a case on first information of any cognizable offence and in the present case ransom call had been received in their jurisdiction. On 30/01/2012 he had directed ATO Suraj Pal to go to Deemapur by air as victim had been informed to have gone to Deemapur. All information including bank account had been provided to ATO Suraj Pal. On 31/01/2012 he had provided the bank details of the account of R. Maranag Rouba to ATO Suraj Pal. On 02/02/2012 he had received information that ransom amount had been paid and was informed by complainant that amount has been paid in R. Joseph's account. He denied that no inquiry was conducted in regard to change of account no. He denied that on false complaint they had manipulated a false case to implicate the accused in the case.

23. PW20 is the IO who stated that after registration of FIR investigation was marked to him. He made inquiries from complainant Kamal Kishore thereafter, went to their house at Nehru Vihar where Kanchan victim's wife informed him about receiving the ransom call and had given an account number in the name of R. Maranag. He made further inquiry and SHO had also reached there. He returned to Police Station and gave wireless message and uploaded information on zip.net. On the next day he had gone to SBI Model Town and obtained details of the account number. He also inquired about the details of the ATM cards carried by the victim Rakesh. The detail being Ex. PW20/D. From the details it was confirmed that the transaction were made from Senapati Branch, Manipur Assam. Copy of letter being Ex. PW20/E. Thereafter, he reached residence of complainant where Kanchan SC no.:­31/14 Page 22/51 again informed that 3­4 more calls for ransom had been received. A device for recording the calls/conversation was placed with the landline phone and Smt. Kanchan was instructed to record the call. He came back to Police Station and discussed the case with senior officers. Thereafter, two teams were constituted. One team was comprising of ATO Suraj Pal and Mukesh. The second team had him & HC parveen. ATO Suraj Pal and Mukesh had gone to Guwahati by plane. He alongwith HC parveen had gone to Deemapur by train. On 02/02/2012 they reached Deemapur and talked with SHO at Delhi. He was informed that ATO Suraj Pal and Mukesh had already reached Senapati and was also instructed to reach Senapati. He alongwith HC parveen left for Senapati and in the way SHO again appraised him about the deposit of the ransom amount in the account of R. Joseph at Senapati. The account number was told to him and was instructed to reach at the said place. After reaching Senapati he contacted ATO Suraj Pal who met him alongwith Mukesh. He was also informed about arriving of the Police team of operation cell Delhi. Suraj Pal informed him about his meeting with the police officials of Senapati. Thereafter, two team were constituted. One was headed by Inspector Rohtash and the other was headed by him. They had gone to SBI Bank Senapati and obtained details of account of R. Maranag Rouba. The same being Ex. PW20/F. The letter to branch Manager SBI Senapati Ex. PW20/G. Inquiries about account of R. Joseph was made and it was informed that the same pertained to Lairouching Branch. Thereafter, they went to Police Station Senapati and took more local officials and went to SBI Lairouching Branch. Notice was given to branch manager being Ex. PW20/I. It was informed by the branch Manger that the said account of R. Joseph was not earlier working but was made functional by account holder and Rs. 5 lakh was deposited in the said account from Delhi and Rs. 4,64,000/­ had been withdrawn. The certified copy of record of withdrawal being Ex. PW20/J. Thereafter, they came out of the bank and called SC no.:­31/14 Page 23/51 Inspector Rohtash. He had discussed the case with Inspector Rohtash and ATO Suraj Pal. They thereafter, reached Maram Bazar and made inquires about R. Joseph and were conveyed that R. Joseph belonged to NSCNK terrorist group. In the meantime they also received information to search house of Attekoh friend of R. Joseph. After leaving few officials near the vehicle they alongwith police officials and Mukesh had gone to house of Attekoh where the door was knocked and the same opened itself. They entered the house. On entering the second room they found victim Rakesh. On seeing Mukesh victim Rakesh raised alarm. Two persons were sitting on the bed in the said room and on seeing them one of them escaped from a small door situated in the other side of the room. Inspector Rohtash chased the said persons but could not succeed as he had slipped on the slope and managed to escape. The said person who had fled was stated to be Attekoh. The other person sitting on the bed was apprehended and was accused Mhonchumo who was present in the court. Search of accused was carried out wherein purse containing ATM, metro cards, DL etc. and Rs. 300/­ was recovered. Rs. 50,000/­ in the denomination of Rs. 500/­ notes kept in the handkerchief was also recovered from the pocket of the accused. On further search two ATM cards one PNB and one ICICI bank were found from below the mattresses of the said room. Victim identified the said ATM cards which was stated to be snatched by the accused persons from him and were belonging to his brother. Rs. 50,000/­ recovered were kept in sealed pulanda. Seizure memo being Ex. PW5/A, ATM cards seizure memo being Ex. PW5/B. Personal search of accused being Ex. PW5/E. Body search memo being Ex. PW20/K. One lady arrived at the said house who started crying loudly and speaking in a local language. Some public persons collected there who were turning hostile and agitating. Meanwhile the police officials who had gone for search of Attekoh came back. Rakesh was having injuries and was sent to local Police Station. Accused led them to the house of R. SC no.:­31/14 Page 24/51 Joseph which was found locked. Adjacent to the same medical shop was also found locked and was stated to be managed by wife of R. Joseph. They were informed that the R. Joseph was only occasionally visiting the house. Accused had pointed out towards the gali from where victim was kidnapped. Site plan Ex. PW5/C was prepared. Thereafter, he had gone to village of R. Maranag Gauba but his house was also found locked and no specific information was revealed. He again returned to Maram Bazar to check the house of R. Joseph but the same was again found locked. Accused Mhonchumo was arrested. He had tried to give information of the arrest of accused but the phone number was found to be closed. Accused was taken to local PS and was interrogated thoroughly. He had made disclosure statement Ex. PW5/F. Inquiries from victim were made and statement were recorded. Entry at local PS was made. SHO Timar Pur was appraised about the circumstances and development of the case. He alongwith accused and victim had stayed at the PS while other police officials stayed at hotel. On 03/02/2012 they departed from there and reached Imphal. Victim and accused were medially examined in the hospital at Imphal. Accused was produced before Ld. CJM and transit remand obtained. Copy of the order of Ld. CJM being Ex. PW20/N. In the night accused was kept in CRPF Group Centre and on the next day they departed through plane and reached Delhi. On 04/02/2012 accused was produced before SHO. Victim was handed over to family of the victim. Accused was medically examined and sent to lockup. Two days police remand was obtained. Search of associate of accused Mhonchumo was made but no clue was found. He had gone to the house of complainant and checked the recording of device but found no conversation was recorded as Smt. Kanchan could not successfully operate the same. Memory card of phone of Kamal Kishore were taken into police possession vide memo Ex. PW1/D which had some recorded conversation. He collected call detail record of relevant numbers. On 10/02/2012 SC no.:­31/14 Page 25/51 he seized the deposition slip of Rs. 5 lakh Ex.PW8/A vide memo Ex. PW8/B from Laxman Ram. The details collected from the bank were Ex. PW8/C. The receipt of Rs. 50,000/­ was Ex. PW1/C. Photocopy of the currency notes recovered from accused was Ex. P2. The photographs of notes alongwith CD were Ex. PW17/B, Ex. PW17/A & Ex. PW17/A1. Medical papers of victim were Ex. PW20/O. FIR being Ex. PW20/P. The memory card of mobile phone of Kamal Kishore Ex. PW20/R. In cross­examination stated that he had inquired about delay in complaining from 23/01/2012 to 29/01/2012 and was informed that they were under impression that since victim was out of station there may be number of valid reasons due to which he could not have earlier called them. He had instructed for keeping three mobile nos. mentioned in Ex.PW1/A under observation for purpose of ascertaining the location. There was however, no written instructions in this regard. He did not receive any feedback of the said mobile numbers. He was not aware that Deemapur was in Nagaland at the time of lodging of FIR but is aware of this fact now. He had not given any mobile phone with recording system to Kamal Kishore complainant but had attached recording machine with the landline of the complainant. He admitted that on 30/01/2012 he had some indication that victim's ATM was being used by some person in Senapati Manipur. He had informed that complainant's family about their intention to visit Manipur. They had reached Deemapur on 02/02/2012 in the morning at about 05­06 p.m. SHO was co­ordinating with all persons on phone. He had no idea of the time when he had received call from the SHO about deposit of ransom amount in the account of R. Joseph at Senapati. He admitted that before receiving call from SHO on the said day he had no information about the ransom money being deposited in the account of R. Joseph. He admitted that there was possibility that he had talked with the complainant on phone on 01/02/2012. He had not given any instructions to Manager SBI Senapati to monitor SC no.:­31/14 Page 26/51 account no. of R. Maranag Rouba. He had not seized the document whereby Smt. Kanchan had recorded the ransom call no. and other details on the paper. He had not carried out any investigation in regard to locating the uncle of the accused. He did not have any information if accused Attekoh was cousin of ms. Rupa. He had no knowledge if victim and accused on the instance of Rupa gone to meet Attekoh in Maram Bazar Manipur in September, 2011. he denied that victim Ms. Rupa, Ram Kumar and Attekoh had befooled the accused by alluring him into business transaction and falsely implicate him in the case. He also denied that despite being aware about the false kidnapping story he had played to the tunes of victim and other persons and falsely implicated the accused in the case. He denied that due to this reason he had taken the slowest possible train to reach the destination. He denied that he had deliberately not obtained the call details report of victim, Mukesh and Laxman Ram as this could have revealed the true story and expose the false investigation. He did not carry out any investigation in regard to Ms. Poonam whose no. was being used by the victim at the relevant time. He was not aware if victim was in continuous telephonic contact with Kamal Kishore. He volunteered that victim had told that his mobile no. was being used by kidnappers during his kidnapping periods. It is also possible that kidnappers had allowed the victim to talk with the complainant to establish that he was alive. He admitted that mobile no. 8750870169 belonged to ATO Suraj Pal and five calls were made to victim's mobile no. on 01/02/2012 between 05:20 to 07:25 p.m. He admitted that on 01/02/2012 victim was in the custody of kidnappers. He also admitted that ATO Suraj Pal did not give him any information regarding the contents of the above said 05 calls which were made by him when victim was in custody of the kidnappers. He also stated that he was not aware if Laxman Ram and Kamal Kishore were in contact with the victim on 01/02/2012 at 07:39 & 07:25 p.m. when the victim was in custody of kidnappers. He did not inquire from Laxman Ram as SC no.:­31/14 Page 27/51 to why he had deposited the money in R. Joseph's account SBI Lairouching and not in R. Maranag Rouba SBI Senapati. Laxman Ram had informed him that he had deposited the money due to fear of victim's life. He denied that he had deliberately not made such inquiry as he was aware and that the same was done on his instructions. ATO Suraj Pal had informed him that kidnapping in the said area was very easy and normal and general public was living in fear as there were many underground groups in the area. He denied that he was deposing falsely that general public was living in fear as Manipur was under Armed Forces Special Power Act for the last 15 years and the situation was under control. He did not record any statement of local Police officials of PS Senapati. He was provided room, paper space and gypsy at PS Senapati. He had also hired one private Maruti van during the said time. He could not tell the exact time when he had received papers about R. Maranag from SBI Senapati. It took 2 hrs for reaching SBI Lairouching from SBI Senapati as the road were in very bad shape. He stated that he was informed by public that R. Joseph was president of NSCNK but did not have any documentary evidence to this effect. He denied that R. Joseph was an ordinary shopkeeper running medical store at Maram Bazar and had no link with the underground organization. He was not aware if Maram Bazar was under the jurisdiction of PS Mao Maram and not PS Senapati. He was not aware of any character certificate issued in the name of R. Joseph. They reached Maram Bazar from Lairouching within 30 to 45 mins. There was no house immediately after Attekoh's house but there were houses adjoining Attekoh's house. The time was of evening around 05 ­05:15 p.m. but was not completely dark and some day light was left. He had knocked on the door of Attekoh's house, nobody opened the door therefore, he had pushed it open. First room was empty. He did not remember if there was electricity but there was sufficient light to see. He denied that only he and Mukesh brother of victim had entered the second room. On entering victim called his SC no.:­31/14 Page 28/51 brother and Mukesh responded, Attekoh fled from the door at the back. They did not fire any shot on Attekoh. Inspector Rohtash tried to run after Attekoh but slipped and fell. Other staff chased Attekoh but was unsuccessful. Accused Mhonchumo also tried to escape but was apprehended. He was carrying required papers in his investigation kit at the said time. He had carried out the personal search of the accused and searched the whole room and house. They did not recover any arm or ammunition, hunting whip, iron rod or stick relating to the case. There was a lady who was shouting loudly and speaking in local language which he could not understand and presumed that she might be Attekoh's wife. Left leg of victim Rakesh was yellow in colour and had become narrow and appeared that bone were broken. The wound were not open. There were bucket in the house but he did not see bucket with human extract. The total time of raid at Attekoh's house was 30 mins. He could not recover the red Maruti used in the kidnapping as the situation was quite bad. He denied that no raid was carried out to rescue victim and Mukesh had telephoned the victim to meet him when victim and accused were travelling in brown Maruti van on their way to Kohima. He denied that accused was the victim and was taken into custody after discussion with Rakesh and Mukesh. He did not record statement of Inspector Rohtash of operation cell as he did not think it necessary and had sufficient witnesses to prove his case. He denied that there was dispute between him and Suraj Pal on one side and Inspector Rohtash on the other about the handling of the case or due to this reason Inspector Rohtash had been left out from the list of witnesses. He did not have any information about the character certificate issued in the name of Attekoh. He had arrested accused Mhonchumo but did not give information to his family members as their phone were found switched off. He did not file any complaint regarding Attekoh, R. Joseph and R. Maranag Rauba at PS Senapati as case has already been registered at PS Timar Pur. Also did not inform about the said accused to SHO PS Senapati. To recover SC no.:­31/14 Page 29/51 money from R. Joseph they had twice gone to his house but found it locked. All activities were carried out on the same day i.e. 02/02/2012. He denied that disclosure statement Ex. PW5/F was obtained from accused under force. DD entry in regard to arrest of accused was recorded in PS Senapati but same has not been filed alongwith the charge sheet. He did not keep the accused in lock up of PS Senapati but in his and HC parveen's custody as he was continuing with the investigation. He could not record statement of local witness as none was willing to give the same. He could not force entry into R. Joseph house as it was not permissible for him to break lock and enter the house. He has not obtained any transcript of memory card Ex. PW1/D of complainant Kamal Kishore. He had heard the recording and to the best of his memory there was demand of Rs. 5 lakh in a language which he could not understand. He denied that there was no recording of ransom in Ex. PW1/D or due to this reason he had not filed any transcript of the same. He admitted that accused did not make any call for ransom. He was informed by Kamal Kishore that he was receiving call on mobile for settlement. Accused had disclosed name of Kanga and Robin as members of NSCNK banned group living in Delhi but they were not able to search the same. He had not received any report in regard to NBWs issued against the other co­accused persons at Senapati Manipur. He denied that he was aware that the present case was a fake kidnapping by the victim to extract money from his father. He denied that instead of taking action against victim and complainant he had carried out sham investigation under directions of SHO. He denied that they had deliberately retained the jurisdiction of the case and falsely implicated the accused in the case.

24. Statement of the accused U/s 313 Cr. PC was recorded. Accused has not led any defence evidence.

25. Ld. APP for the State argued that the case against the accused was proved SC no.:­31/14 Page 30/51 beyond doubt and that the contradictions sought to be relied by the accused was only minor and did not affect the merits of the case.

26. Written arguments on behalf of accused have also been filed and Ld. Counsel for the accused has stated that the accused has been falsely implicated in the case. Victim Rakesh Kumar had himself staged a fake kidnapping case in connivance with one Ms. Rupa, Attekoh and R. Joseph. Victim had allured accused for joining him in the scrap business as he was native of Manipur and when he had received the alleged ransom money and was returning to Delhi, Police contacted him and was asked to stop at Senapati where the victim to save himself falsely impleaded the accused in the present case. Police despite knowing the real story continued to investigate the matter and falsely implicated the accused in the present case. PS Timar Pur had no jurisdiction to investigate in the matter as the victim was shown to be neither kidnapped or abducted, confined, concealed nor detained at Delhi. There are serious contradictions in the case of the prosecution, firstly, in regard to ransom call victim stated that he had made ransom call from his own mobile phone 10­15 calls were made on the landline number and 2­3 calls were made daily from 29/01/2012 to 01/02/2012 whereas victim's phone record does not support this version. No call details of the landline number had been produced. Father of the victim PW8 stated that their landline phone was having ID call facility but PW1 and 10 stated that ransom call came from an unknown number. PW6 victim states that he had called but PW1 & 10 stated that some unknown person had spoken in language which they could not understand. There is no deposition of any family member of the victim to the fact that any call was received from the kidnapper in regard to not depositing the money in R. Maharang's account but to deposit the same in account of R. Joseph. PW19 SHO stated that he was informed by the complainant about deposit of money in R. Joseph's account. On 02/02/2012 he had informed IO but there is no SC no.:­31/14 Page 31/51 deposition of PW1 to support this claim. The other material contradiction is in regard to change of the account number. Further the raid is also suspicious, on the following grounds, namely, time of raid, Rakesh Kumar said that he came out from captivity at 03:30 p.m. when the sun was shining. PW15 stated that they had raided Attekoh's house at 07:30 p.m. in the evening. ATO Suraj Pal stated that they raided Attekoh's house at 06:30 to 07:00 p.m. and it was cold and dark. PW14 stated the time was 05:00 to 06:00 p.m. in the evening. PW5 stated that it was dark. IO PW20 stated that it was between 05:00 to 05:15 p.m. All the witnesses have therefore, deposed in contradiction to each other. There is also suspicion about the fact that victim was kept in which room. PW6, PW5 & PW7 have not spoken about one empty room and the victim being in second room. PW14, PW15 & PW20 stated that they had entered the first room which was empty and the victim was in second room. The witness have also made contradictory statement about location, size and rooms of Attekoh's house. The witness have stated house to be 10 x 8, 10 x 10 & 6 x 6. They have stated that house was built on level of ground with hill on one side. The other stated that it was open from the back side. PW6 stated that he was confined in a large room measuring 20 x 20. Mode of entry into house also suggests the falsity of the prosecution's story. PW5 stated that Police knocked and it was open from inside but later stated two policemen had forcibly opened the door. PW6 on seeing shouted Mukesh. PW7 & IO and Inspector Rohtash knocked the door and later pushed it open but did not know if the door was latched from inside or not. PW14 says door was not locked from the inside or outside and IO and Inspector Rohtash pushed the doors. PW15 & IO called Attekoh's name to which Attekhoh answered 'Yes'. IO PW20 stated that he knocked and pushed the door. The first room was empty and he went to second room where they saw the victim, accused and Attekoh ran away from the other door. In regard to number of doors in the room, PW6 stated that there was another door. PW14 also stated that SC no.:­31/14 Page 32/51 there was another door. PW6 says that window was there but was closed with wooden shutters. ATO says that it was Joseph who escaped through back door. There is dispute in regard to who had chased the Attekoh and proceedings conducted by IO in the room. PW20 stated that he had searched the accused and seizure memo was prepared in the same room. PW6 stated that no proceedings were conducted in his presence in the room. PW5 stated that no documents were prepared in the room. PW20 stated that he wrote disclosure statement in PS Senapati. PW14 & IO had searched the accused but did not carry out other proceedings in the room due to gathering of large crowd. PW7 stated that recovery of Rs. 50,000/­ was not effected in his presence and he do not remember whether IO prepared any documents in the room or not. In regard to investigation after the raid, PW20 stated that PW6 was sent to PS Senapati but Mukesh was not sent with Rakesh. After raid accused was taken to R. Joseph's house and medical store where accused showed the Gali from where victim Rakesh had been abducted and site plan was prepared. PW15 stated that after the raid of Police official alongwith victim and accused went to PS Senapati. At PS Senapati, it is admitted by all Police officials that no official entry in PS Senapati about arrest of accused or keeping him in Jail was made. PW20 stated that he alongwith victim and accused stayed at Police Station while other Police officials stayed in the hotel. PW6 stated that he stayed for Police Station for 1­½ hours and thereafter, stayed in the hotel with his brother and Police officials. PW15 stated that Police officials stayed in PS Senapati and none had gone to guest house. PW7 stated that IO and some of Police officials had stayed at PS Senapati and other stayed at guest house. PW7 has also given a contradictory statement that he did not have mobile number of the team and did not contract victim on 01/02/2012 but as per the record he had made 05 calls to the victim. He also disclosed the wrong mobile number while real mobile number was concealed by him. There is contradiction in regard to use of mobile phone by SC no.:­31/14 Page 33/51 PW6, the language of kidnappers, ransom call. It is stated that in fact victim Rakesh Kumar was an unemployed youth and has faked story of kidnapping with the help of his brothers & friends to extract money from his father Laxman Ram. Victim Rakesh Kumar had chosen the North East area as Ms. Rupa's brother Attekoh stayed there therefore, thought that Delhi Police would not be able to trace him. Accused was used as a credible witness as he was a local resident of Nagaland. The accused was roped in by the victim showing him lure of business. The complainant was forced to lodge FIR on the instance of his father. Police had known about the false kidnapping on 29/01/2012 but continued to play alongwith victim to misappropriate ransom money and later decided to frame the accused for giving credibility to their case. The victim was never kept in confinement. He had access to his mobile phone. ATO and family members of the victim were in touch with him before he was rescued. No independent witness was associated by the IO in regard to search and seizure. It is stated that accused was innocent person and falsely implicated in the case.

27. To prove their case prosecution needs to establish that (1) accused in connivance with other co­accused person and with intention to abduct victim for ransom called him to Deemapur and thereby abducted and illegally confined him at Senapati for ransom of Rs. 5 lakhs (2) ransom was deposited by family of victim and withdrawn by the accused persons. (3) victim rescued and accused arrested on raid at Attekoh's house and (4) recovery of Rs. 50,000/­ from accused and two ATM from Attekoh's house.

28. Ld. Counsel for accused have elaborately and even on minor details spread over days cross­examined all relevant prosecution witnesses. Thus, for the purpose of proper appreciation of the matter relevant evidence is again discussed on vital aspects. As per the prosecution's story victim had left Delhi on 19/01/2012 and after 23/01/2012 lost contact with his family as he was abducted. On 29/01/2012 abductors made first call to the family of SC no.:­31/14 Page 34/51 the victim disclosing them that victim had been abducted and that ransom of Rs. 5 lakhs should be deposited by them if they wanted him back. In the evening Bank account number of R. Maranag Rouba was provided to the family of the victim for deposit of ransom. Victim's father was at Jodhpur and was informed about the same. In the meanwhile FIR was lodged. The said Bank account of R. Maranag was found to be of Senapati District Manipur. Police prepared two teams which left for Senapati. On 01/02/2012 father of the victim deposited Rs. 5 lakhs in the account of R. Joseph. On 02/02/2012 complainant conveyed to the SHO PS Timar Pur that ransom amount had been deposited. Immediately the said information was passed to IO who was on way to Senapati. Bank details of R. Joseph was obtained. From the same it was revealed that the ransom amount had been withdrawn on the same day of deposit and the address of the said person was of Maram Bazar PS Senapati. Thereafter, raiding party was prepared. R. Joseph's house was found locked. But suspicious activity from the house of Attekoh was reported. Police raided the same and rescued victim and apprehended accused, Rs. 50,000/­ alongwith two ATM cards of victim were recovered. While one accused namely Attekoh managed to flee from the site. None of the other accused were found nor the remaining ransom amount could be recovered.

29. PW6 victim stated that he was previously knowing accused Mhonchumo as he had visited his house when he had gone for massage at a parlour run by Ms. Rupa and accused was residing in the same building. On the pretext of providing a good scrap deal from his uncle who was serving in the army, accused had called him (victim) to Shilong Manipur in December, 2011 but the said deal could not materialize due to Christmas festival. Victim returned to his home at the said time. Accused thereafter, in January, 2012 started calling victim on the pretext that he had stayed back in Manipur only because of the victim's business deal. Victim left Delhi on 19/01/2012 for Deemapur. On reaching Deemapur SC no.:­31/14 Page 35/51 accused conveyed that he should come to Maram Bazar. Victim reached Bus Stop Maram Bazar and met accused. Accused took him to a lonely street on the pretext of smoking cigrettee and at this time two persons abducted both accused Mhonchumo and victim in a Car. They kept them at the house of Attekoh. Accused always discouraged victim in regard to any plan of escaping from the said house. 2­3 days prior to his rescue victim tried to run away from the abductor's house but in this event fell down on the ground and suffered injuries on the leg. Victim was caught hold by accused Mhonchumo and other accused persons and given beatings. Accused also conveyed and scolded him that he had tried to flop their kidnapping plan. From this period onward role of accused in the kidnapping became clear and accused started harassing the victim. Victim had again called his family disclosing the account no. for deposit of ransom money. On 01/02/2012 accused persons had conveyed him that they had received the ransom money and thereafter, were in dilemma whether to leave him or kill him. As per him their final plan was to kill him. In the meanwhile Police alongwith his brother Mukesh raided the premises and rescued him. Accused was arrested. The other accused Attekoh fled from the house and could not be apprehended. Accused R. Joseph was not present in the house at the said time.

30. Victim in his evidence reiterated that the kidnapper had made him talk to his family member from his mobile phone in regard to conveying their kidnapping and demand of ransom of Rs. 5 lakhs. He also stated that he had told Bank account of the kidnappers to his brother. He further stated that in the night prior to day of rescue he was told by the accused person that ransom money had been received and that he would be killed. Accused Mhonchumo also told that he should be killed or otherwise their plan would be exposed. The other accused persons were talking in their regional language but they had explained to him in English which he could understand. He stated that he was rescued at day time when the SC no.:­31/14 Page 36/51 sun was in sky but he did not remember the exact time. The door of his room was shut but not locked. Police personnel had opened the door, he got scared but on seeing his brother Mukesh he called him. It took 30 mins to reach Police Station. There is no material contradiction shown in the cross­examination of PW6 in regard to his leaving Delhi for Deemapur on 19/01/2012 and having lost contact with his family after 23/01/2012. On behalf of accused various contradictory suggestions were given to the said witness which are material not only for appreciation of the mater in question but also to test the genuineness of the defence of the accused. Witness denied the suggestion that he had planned his fake kidnapping and for this purpose was using mobile no. 8826567354. He also denied that he denied a plan with Mr. Attekoh to show the kidnapping to create an impression in the mind of accused Mhonchumo that he had actually been kidnapped. He also denied that he had requested Mhonchumo to go to Maram Bazar and to stay with Mr. Attekoh and to look for scrap as accused was from the same area. He also denied that on the second occasion accused took him in Taxi from Railway Station to the house of Attekoh at Maram Bazar. He denied that he was knowing Attekoh very well. He denied that he alongwith Ms. Rupa, Mr. Ram Kumar and Mr. Attekoh had hatched a plan of fake abducting to get money from his father so that he could start the scrap business. He also denied that he was under intoxication and fell causing injuries on his leg. He denied that while staying at Pural Village he accidentally slipped while jumping from a height and suffered injuries. He denied that after he came to know that his father had transferred the money. He was returning from Pural Village to Deemapur via Kohima by a Car with accused Mhonchumo. He also denied that during this period he had received call from his brother Mukesh and they had asked him to stop at Senapati and on seeing Police personnel in order to save himself he put all blame on accused Mhonchumo. All the above said suggestions clearly show that accused was not SC no.:­31/14 Page 37/51 disputing his presence with victim but was rather admitting his presence with the victim during the period of victim's visit in question to Deemapur and till the date of arrest of the present accused. The injuries of the victim are also not disputed. The dispute is only to the extent as to how victim suffered said injuries. As per victim he fell down 2­3 days prior to his rescue while attempting to flee from Attekoh's house. While according to the defence of accused, victim suffered injuries when he was at Pural Village and while jumping from height under intoxication fell down and suffered injuries.

31. Next vital fact of the case would be to establish the ransom call location of abductors and rescue of victim. The story of demand of ransom by the accused persons is corroborated by PW1 & PW10 who stated that they received first abduction call on 29/01/2012 at 07:30 a.m. on their landline phone. PW10 stated that she received second ransom call disclosing account of R. Maranag at 04:00 p.m. on the same day. FIR was lodged by PW1 and recorded by PW3, at 03:10 p.m. on 29/01/2012. PW20 is the IO who stated that he was handed over the investigation on 29/01/2012 and he had obtained details of the account of R. Maranag from SBI Model Town which was provided to him on 30/01/2012 vide Ex. PW16/A. This document revealed that the said Bank account in the name of R. Maranag belonged to SBI Senapati District. He on 30/01/2012 left for Deemapur by train alongwith HC Parveen (PW15) and reached Deemapur on 02/02/2012 morning. He was told to proceed to Senapati where ATO Suraj Pal and his team had already reached. While on way to Senapati, SHO PW19 conveyed that complainant had informed him about deposit of ransom money in the account of R. Joseph. The details were conveyed to him on phone. He alongwith his team reached Senapati where besides ATO's team, team of Operation Cell North District, Delhi had also arrived. They inquired from SBI, Senapati and SC no.:­31/14 Page 38/51 obtained documents of R. Maranag vide Ex. PW20/H and Ex. PW20/I. It was also told to them that the account of R. Joseph belonged to SBI Lairouching. They went to PS Lairouching and obtained details of the account vide Ex. PW20/J. The address of R. Joseph was also supplied which was of Maram Bazar, PO Maram, Manipur. Police in consultation of all the Police teams decided to raid the premises of R. Joseph. They took help of PS Senapati and inquired about the house of R. Joseph where it was conveyed that R. Joseph belonged to NSCNK terrorist group and also received information about suspicious activity at the house of Attekoh friend of R. Joseph. Attekoh's house was raided. The door was knocked which was pushed opened and the Police team entered the house. In the second room victim Rakesh was found who called his brother Mukesh. Two accused were also sitting on the bed of the room and tried to escape. Accused Mhonchumo was apprehended while Attekoh managed to escape. Inspector Rohtash chased him but could not succeed as accused managed to slip on the slope on the back side. Victim had disclosed about the role of the accused in kidnapping. Accused was searched and Rs. 50,000/­ kept by him in a handkerchief of his pocket were recovered. Two ATMs belonging to brother of victim and disclosed to have been snatched by the abductors and money withdrawn was recovered from beneath the mattresses of the same room. Documents in regard to recovery, seizure, search, arrest was prepared. Accused had also made disclosure statement. The accused alongwith victim was taken to PS Senapati thereafter, on the next day on 03/02/2012 medical of victim and accused was carried out at Regional Institute of Medical Sciences Hospital, Imphal and thereafter, produced before Ld. CJM, Imphal whereby 05 days transit remand was granted vide Ex. PW20/L. In the night accused was kept in CRPF, Group Centre and on the next day all concerned persons returned to Delhi by plane on 04/02/2012. Accused was produced before SHO and in the Court. Medical of victim Ex. PW2/A was obtained. Victim was SC no.:­31/14 Page 39/51 admitted in hospital, treated and discharged. Documents relating to mobile no. and call details Ex. PW12/B & Ex. PW11/B of the mobile numbers used by victim, his brother Kamal were obtained. Details of landline of victim's family were also obtained. The photographs of the recovered notes were prepared and kept on record. The amount of Rs. 50,000/­ was released to the victim's family on superdari vide Ex. PW1/B. In cross­ examination of PW20, almost the entire story of examination­in­chief was reaffirmed. Witness also stated that he was not aware that victim was in continuous telephonic conversation with his brother Kamal Kishore through his mobile. He volunteered that kidnappers were using the said mobile of victim during the kidnapping. He stated that mobile no. 8750870169 belonged to ATO Suraj Pal and ATO had called 05 times on the victim's mobile number. He admitted that calls were made by ATO Suraj Pal from his mobile phone to victim's mobile. He also admitted that on 01/02/2012 victim was in the custody of the kidnappers. He also admitted that ATO Suraj Pal did not give him information regarding the contents of his conversation of the said 05 calls by him on victim's mobile number when victim was in the custody of the kidnappers. He stated that he was not aware if Laxman Ram was in touch with victim on 01/02/2012 when victim was in custody of kidnappers. He denied that complainant had informed him on 01/02/2012 through telephone that money had been deposited by Laxman Ram in designated bank account. He clarified that though it was mentioned in the charge sheet that he was informed about deposit of money by Kamal Kishore but he had not stated that the information was received on 01/02/2012. He reiterated that SHO Yashbir had first informed him about deposit on 02/02/2012 and thereafter, Kamal Kishore also informed him about the deposit of the money. He had not requested any help from Operation Cell, North staff. He did not have any documentary evidence to show that R. Joseph was President of NSCNK. He denied that R. SC no.:­31/14 Page 40/51 Joseph was an ordinary shopkeeper running medical store by the name of I.K. Pharmacy at Maram Bazar and not linked to any underground organization. He was not knowing anything about character certificate Mark DX1, Mark DX2 in respect of R. Joseph. It was around 05:00­05:15 p.m. when it was not completely dark and some day light was left at the time of raid at Attekoh's house. He reiterated that he had knocked the door of Attekoh. It was not opened. He pushed it opened and entered first followed by other persons. The size of the said room was probably 10 x 8 or 10 x 10. He did not recollect if he had seen electrical light or window in the room. The second room was almost same size as the first room. He stated that he was informed by Kamal Kishore that he was receiving calls on his mobile for settlement of the matter. He explained that he had tried to search accused R. Joseph & Ors. but could not succeed. PW2 proved the MLC of victim Ex. PW2/A. PW4 proved victim was admitted on 05/02/2012 for treatment of fracture of left proximal tibia, operation was carried out and was discharged vide Ex. PW4/A. PW5 reiterated in regard to victim having left Delhi for Deemapur on 19/01/2012, lodging of FIR and his visit to Deemapur alongwith ATO Suraj Pal via airplane on 30/01/2012. He has also corroborated the rescue of the victim and recovery of Rs. 50,000/­ from accused & two ATM cards from beneath the mattresses of the room from where accused was arrested. In cross­examination PW5 stated that it was not dark when they reached the house for raid and sun light was there. He has reiterated that victim and accused was in the second room which was opened by the Police. Victim had called his name and third person i.e. second accused fled from the house. He denied the suggestion that he alongwith Police team from Delhi met Rakesh and accused who were travelling in a Taxi at Senapati or that no raid was conducted in his presence. PW7 also reiterated the prosecution's story that he had left Delhi alongwith Mukesh on 30/01/2012 and SC no.:­31/14 Page 41/51 reached Senapati on 31/01/2012. On 02/02/2012 IO alongwith his team reached Senapati and also met Inspector Rohtash from Special Cell North District alongwith his team. The account from SBI Maram Bazar was verified and details obtained. They had conducted raid at the house of Attekoh at Maram Bazar and with the help of local Police had rescued the victim and arrested accused. Recovery of Rs. 50,000/­ from accused and two ATM cards from beneath the mattresses from the said room is also reaffirmed. In cross­examination he stated that they had reached Attekoh's house around 06:30­07:00 p.m. and street lights and house lights were on. He was carrying mobile no. 9868651814. He denied the suggestion that they had managed all their expenses in regard to air fare, stay etc. at Senapati from the amount of alleged ransom of the victim. He denied that currency notes shown to be recovered from accused were not recovered from the accused. PW15 also reiterated the entire story. He admitted the suggestion that they reached Attekoh's house around 07:30 p.m. PW8 stated that he was told the account number by the kidnapper for deposit of the ransom money and had deposited Rs. 5 lakhs for transfer to the account no. of R. Joseph from SBI Nirankari Colony Branch Delhi and had moved an application for the same. In cross­examination he stated that he did not remember which son had informed him about the details of the ransom call regarding account no. and the manner in which it was deposited. He had deposited the amount on 01/02/2012 and had taken with him the account no. written on the slip which was destroyed after the deposit of the amount in the bank. He had not disclosed the true reasons for depositing the amount as then bank officials would not have allowed him to deposit the amount. He had not informed the Police about the deposit of the ransom money. PW19 stated that he was SHO PS Timar Pur and has reaffirmed that FIR was lodged on 29/01/2012 vide complaint Ex. PW1/A. During investigation it came to his notice that the account no. of SC no.:­31/14 Page 42/51 the abductor given to them belonged to SBI Senapati Manipur. On 02/02/2012 complainant had informed him on phone about the deposit of Rs. 5 lakhs in the abductor's account. In cross­examination he reaffirmed that he got the information about ransom amount being paid on 02/02/2012 by complainant and that he did not have any prior information about the deposit.

32. The prosecution's witnesses have thus corroborated and reaffirmed the entire prosecution's story relating to victim having left Delhi on 19/01/2012, lost contact with his family from 23/01/2012, ransom call of 29/01/2012. On 30/01/2012 Police teams leaving for Deemapur and Senapati, deposit and withdrawal of ransom money in the account of R. Joseph on 01/02/2012, the rescue of the victim from Attekoh's house on 02/02/2012 and arrest of accused Mhonchumo, recovery of Rs. 50,000/­ from accused & two ATMs from beneath the mattresses of the said house.

33. Ld. Counsel for accused has stated that in fact the entire story of kidnapping was a false story and had been staged by the victim to extract money from his father. It is their defence that victim after receiving the money was returning back by Car from Pural Village and on being contacted by his brother/Police had stopped at Senapati and with a view to save himself had falsely implicated accused in the present case. There were material contradictions in regard to the ransom call, the person who had received information about deposit of ransom money in R. Joseph's account, the time of raid, the description of Attekoh's house. The conduct of the alleged abductors with the victim and the family members whereby they provided unrestricted access to his mobile number. ATO Suraj Pal and the family members had talked repeatedly on the victim's mobile on 01/02/2012 one day before the alleged raid and recovery creates a doubt on the prosecution's story. It is also stated that the accused was carrying mobile no. 8014117570 at the said time. SC no.:­31/14 Page 43/51

34. In regard to the above objections, it is important to note that the call details Ex. PW12/B of the victim shows that victim was on roaming after 19/01/2012 in North­West Circle and the last call was made from mobile no. 8014117570 on 23/01/2012 at 13:16:44 hrs. Thereafter, there is no call relating to the said mobile no. till 31/01/2012. It was specifically admitted on behalf of accused that he was using mobile no. 8014117570 at the said time. This therefore, clearly corroborates the story that victim had gone out of Delhi to NW Circle and accused on 23/01/2012 had made the last call to him. This version of last call with accused is also supported by PW6 who has stated that he was called by accused Mhonchumo to come to Maram Bazar on 23/01/2012 and thereafter, taken to secluded spot where he was abducted. Thereafter, victim had no contact from 23/01/2012 till 29/01/2012 with his family is also confirmed from the said call details. The first ransom call is stated to be of 29/01/2012 on the landline of the victim's family and no documents in regard to call was available as it was stated by PW13 that the said landline telephone no. was working with outgoing facility only at the said time and details of the incoming or outgoing calls could be maintained only if prior request has been received. As per the prosecution's story ransom call was received on 29/01/2012 and thereafter, FIR was lodged. Therefore, there was no occasion for undertaking any effort for keeping the said phone under surveillance before the said date. The defence of the accused is to the effect that accused had been with the victim as he was native of the said area and had been allured by the victim on the pretext of being associated with scrap business. The further story of the prosecution is that on 01/02/2012 the ransom amount of Rs. 5 lakhs was deposited by PW8 from SBI Nirankari for transfer to the account of R. Joseph. The said amount was withdrawn from SBI Lairouching on the same day. The said fact of deposit of ransom money is corroborated both from the document of SBI Nirankari Branch, Delhi and from the documents Ex. PW20/H to PW20/J provided by SC no.:­31/14 Page 44/51 SBI Bank Lairouching Branch, District Senapati.

35. In regard to the 05 calls made by ATO on the mobile no. of the victim on 01/02/2012. It was explained by IO that at the said time there would have been an attempt to establish contact on the mobile phone of the victim so as to try and locate the location of the victim. The strategy used by the Police normally involves repeated calls both outgoing and incoming so that the signal from the towers are confirmed. In the present case ATO had made calls but no success was achieved and therefore, probably the said information was not provided to him (IO). In this respect, it is the case of the prosecution that after 29/01/2012 the abductors were calling from the mobile of the victim and talking with family members of the victim for the purpose of deposit of ransom. It is not their case that the victim's mobile was switched off from 29/01/2012 till the date of rescue. PW6 victim also stated that he was made to talk from his mobile phone by the kidnappers for the purpose of conveying information to his family. This therefore, appears to be a probable and acceptable explanation of the number of calls made from ATO's mobile on the mobile no. of victim on 01/02/2012 i.e. one day before his rescue. The relevant call details of ATO at point Mark M2 also show that the said calls were made repeatedly after short period and are also only for very short durations i.e. 28, 31, 40, 67 & 84 seconds only. The call details Ex. PW11/B in respect of mobile no. of victim's brother also corroborate that there was repeated contact with the victim on his mobile no. on 30/01/2012, 31/01/2012 & 01/02/2012. There is therefore, no reason to doubt the explanation of the IO in regard to the call by ATO on the mobile of victim on 01/02/2012. Even as per the defence of the accused, he was with the victim who on receiving ransom money was returning to Delhi and on asking had stopped at Senapati. If the said defence of accused was true and accused had knowledge that Police were on look out for them, then, instead of stopping at Senapati accused would have SC no.:­31/14 Page 45/51 preferred to flee from the said place. In regard to the objection that there is no explanation as to who had received the information about deposit of ransom money in the account of R. Joseph is concerned. PW8 had stated he had deposited the amount on 01/02/2012 in the account no. which he had noted on the slip of paper. But could not remember which of his son had provided the details of the same. It is not disputed that the ransom amount was deposited by PW8 from SBI Nirankari Branch and transferred to R. Joseph's account SBI Lairounching Branch. The call details Ex. PW11/B show a call received from victim's phone on Kamal's (brother of victim) phone on 30/01/2012 at 03:01:51 p.m. This was the call one day prior to deposit of the ransom amount and it is possible that PW1 i.e. complainant had received the said ransom call. Even otherwise the failure of PW1 or other witness to state who had actually received the said ransom call about R. Joseph's account does not materially affect the case as neither the deposit nor the withdrawal of the ransom amount in said account is disputed and is also corroborated from the official documents from the respective banks.

36. In regard to the raid at Attekoh's house, it is stated that the witnesses have given a different version in regard to the time of raid, the dimensions, locations of the house and the sequence of raid at Attekoh's house. In this respect all the relevant witnesses have stated that after information was received from SBI Lairouching. They returned to Maram Bazar and thereafter, raid was conducted. PW5 stated that it was not dark as sunlight was there. PW6 stated that he was rescued at about 03:30 p.m. PW7 stated that raid was conducted between 06:30­07:00 p.m. PW14 stated that raid was conducted around 05:00­06:00 p.m. PW15 stated that they reached Maram Bazar for raid between 06:00­07:00 p.m. He was given a suggestion which was admitted that they had reached Attekoh's house around 07:30 SC no.:­31/14 Page 46/51 p.m. PW20 stated that it was around 05:00 p.m. and was not completely dark. In this regard document Ex. PW20/H to Ex. PW20/J are also material for this purpose as according to prosecution only after receiving information about the residence of R. Joseph they had planned the raid. The said document Ex. PW20/J is shown to have been delivered to IO on 02/02/2012 at 16:37:46 hrs. This shows that the raid in question could have been conducted only after this time of 16:37:46 hrs. on 02/02/2012. The contradiction in regard to time between 05:00 to 07:00 p.m. is therefore, only minor and can be attributed to normal forgetting of minor details due to lapse of time from the day of event and recording of the evidence. There is however, no material contradiction in regard to probable time of raid which is proved to be in the evening of 02/02/2012.

37. It is further argued on behalf of the accused that since the victim had staged a fake kidnapping case and had not suffered substantial injuries on his leg, he was not shown to be given immediate medical help on his alleged rescue on 02/02/2012. It is further stated that accused was apprehended from near the road side and the victim on coming to know that Police had arrived, with a view to save himself, falsely implicated accused in the said case.

38. In this regard, after the accused was rescued on 02/02/2012, accused and victim both were taken to hospital at Imphal for medical examination for producing them before the Ld. CJM, Imphal. The said OPD registration card of accused and victim from Regional Institute of Medical Sciences Hospital Imphal have been placed on record, which reveals that patient Rakesh was brought for medical checkup on 03/02/2012 under Police custody for being produced before the Court for giving statement and was suffering from swelling left knee joint with restriction of movement above the joint, otherwise no other external SC no.:­31/14 Page 47/51 injury was seen at the time of examination, was advised X­ray of left knee joint. Similarly accused was also produced on 03/02/2012 at 01:50 p.m. for medical examination and was not shown to be suffering any injury/ deformity at the said time. Thereafter, both were produced before the Ld. CJM and the order dated 03/02/2012 of the Ld. CJM being Ex. PW20/L reads as follows "the accused is produced before me. I have heard the I.O. of the case as well as the accused person. Perused the remand prayer along with the case diary submitted by the I.O. of the case. The victim namely, Rakesh Kumar of Delhi has been rescued by the Police team of Delhi Police and he affirmed that he was kidnapped for ransom by the accused and his associates. The accused may be handcuffed if required by the I.O. of the case. I am satisfied that there is sufficient material on record for allowing the transit remand as prayed by the I.O. of the case. The I.O. is directed to produce the accused before the Sessions Court, Tis Hazari, Delhi on 7­2­2012 at 2.30 p.m. Issue extract copy of the I.O. of the case for information and necessary action. Announced in the Open Court". This document reveals that the accused and victim both had been produced before the Ld. CJM where the victim had reaffirmed and confirmed that he was kidnapped for ransom by accused and his associates. And only on being satisfied of the said position, transit remand of 05 days had been granted in respect of the accused. No objection had been raised by the accused before the Ld. CJM at the said time. This document is also important to show the first version of the victim before a judicial authority confirming about he being kidnapped for ransom by the accused and his associates.

39. On behalf of accused it is also not explained as to why he was with the victim if he was aware that he was playing and staging a false kidnapping drama. It is also on record that victim had suffered grievous injuries i.e. fracture of left leg and was not given any SC no.:­31/14 Page 48/51 treatment till he is shown to be rescued on 02/02/2012 by the Police team. The said injuries clearly show that victim Rakesh Kumar would have been in pain and would have been experiencing difficulty in movement of left leg at the said time. PW6 stated that he had suffered injuries when he had tried to flee 2­3 days before his rescue but fell on the ground. Accused's defence is victim suffered injuries at Pural Village from falling from height and while returning at Senapati was apprehended by Police. In these circumstances, if the victim was feigning his kidnapping he would have immediately taken medical help as nobody would risk his life and suffer pain which can easily be avoided. The physical condition of the victim also suggests that if he had choice, he would have immediately taken medical advice and would not have waited till the time he reached back to Delhi or was rescued by the Police.

40. It is further argued that the recovery of Rs. 50,000/­ was implanted on the accused and it is stated that Police knew about the fake kidnapping of the victim and in his connivance utilized the alleged ransom money and also implanted Rs. 50,000/­ from the same which in any case was to returned to the family of the victim. This version of the accused is neither corroborated from any evidence nor any omission on the part of the investigating team of such level is shown whereby suspicion on recovery of ransom money could be doubted. All the witnesses from PW5, PW6 & Police witnesses have corroborated the entire story of recovery of Rs. 50,000/­ from the accused. It is also not explained if accused's version was true, as to why the remaining money of Rs. 4,50,000/­ out of the ransom money was not recovered. On the contrary as per record of R. Joseph's account, Rs. 30,000/­ was deducted as loan adjustment in the account of R. Joseph and Rs. 5,000/­ was left in the account. Meaning thereby that even the full ransom amount was not withdrawn SC no.:­31/14 Page 49/51 and if, the accused's version of fake kidnapping is believed, then why would victim have chosen to squander his money amongst various persons and not minimize the stakeholders so as to maximize his benefit. The details of the transactions Ex. PW20/D (colly) of the ATM cards which were stated to be snatched by the abductors and recovered from the Attekoh's house also show that on 27th & 28th, January, 2014 Rs. 40,000/­ had been withdrawn from the same. Victim was in custody of the abductors at this time and had stated that accused had withdrawn the said money and he had disclosed PIN no. under threat. This amount is also not shown to be recovered from any person. Thus, the accused's defence in regard of fake kidnapping for misappropriating his father's money does not appear to have any substance. It is also not explained as to why the accused persons was being falsely implicated in the case. It is stated that Inspector Rohtash who was the head of the second team at the time of raid had not been examined which raised doubt about the raid and the recovery of the money and articles in question. In this regard no statement of Inspector Rohtash is available on record. But the members of his team namely PW14 has been examined and has corroborated the version of the other witnesses. Police had further produced both accused and victim before Ld. CJM, Senapati, Manipur and obtained 05 days transit remand. The copy of the order is Ex. PW20/L. As per which on 03/02/2012 accused was produced before Ld. CJM, Senapati, Manipur and victim Rakesh Kumar of Delhi was shown to be rescued by police team of Delhi Police and he had affirmed that he was kidnapped for ransom by the accused and his associate and the Ld. Court on being satisfied that there was sufficient material on record allowed transit remand and directed to produce the accused before the Sessions Court, THC on 07/02/2012 at 02:30 p.m. This was the first occasion when the accused was produced before a judicial authority and the victim had reaffirmed that he was kidnapped by the accused persons.

SC no.:­31/14 Page 50/51

41. It is further important to note that the accused had also filed an application U/s 227 Cr. PC for discharge at the time of consideration of charge supported with affidavit of Chenio Lotha sister of the accused and copy of the police complaint filed on their behalf before PS Deemapur, Nagaland. As per the application, accused had also been kidnapped alongwith the victim at the said time and a missing report of the accused stating that accused had left from Delhi for Deemapur on 19­20/01/2012 and thereafter, even after one month there was no information and contact of the accused with his family members. This application was filed at the time of consideration of charge but is important to appreciate the fact that even as per the family of the accused he was having no contact with them from 19/01/2012 till 02/02/2012 i.e. the date of his rescue. This therefore, belies the contention of the accused that the victim had staged a false kidnapping drama and that he was innocent and was only accompanying victim on the pretext of having a deal in his scrap business.

42. The prosecution has therefore, proved on record beyond doubt that the accused with the help of other co­accused had entered into a criminal conspiracy to kidnap Rakesh Kumar, called him from Delhi to Deemapur, kidnapped him from Senapati and confined for the purpose of forcing family members of the victim for deposit of Rs. 5 lakh ransom money which was deposited in the account of accused R. Joseph. The said amount was withdrawn and shared by all accused. The present accused having received Rs. 50,000/­ out of the same as his share.

43. The offences U/s 364A/120B IPC are proved against the accused and the accused is accordingly convicted under the said sections.

Announced in the open court                                                                       (DINESH BHATT)
on 30/04/2014                                                                                   ASJ/Delhi/30/04/2014


SC no.:­31/14                                                                                              Page 51/51