Delhi District Court
State vs . Sunder Pal Singh on 2 June, 2011
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI LOKESH KUMAR SHARMA : ACMM/
NORTH EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
State Vs. Sunder Pal Singh
FIR No.20/96
U/S: 387/507 IPC
P.S.: Seelam Pur
(Investigated by Crime Branch - AEC)
Date of Institution of case: 14.09.01
Date on which judgment is reserved: 02.06.11
Date on which judgment is delivered: 02.06.11
Unique I.D. No. 02402R0046992001
J U D G M E N T
a) Sl. No. of the case 27/08
b) Date of commission of offence 10.01.96
c) Name of complainant Shri Satish Chand,
S/o Shri Chand Karan Singh
R/o 31/8, Gali NO.10,
X Block, Braham Puri, Delhi
d)Name of accused, his parentage Sunder Pal Singh
S/o Shri Attar Pal Singh,
R/o VillageKalaina,
Distt. Bulandshahar,
PS Khurja Dehat, UP
FIR NO. 20/96 Page 1 of 21 pages
2
e) Offence complained of or proved U/S: 387/507 IPC
f) Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
g) Final order :Acquitted.
h) Date of such order :02.06.11
j) Brief reasons for the just decision of the case
1. In brief the prosecution case against the accused is that on 2nd 3rd and 6th March 1996, accused Sunder Lal had made a demand through telephone calls to complainant to extort Rs.20,00,000/ from complainant Satish Chand for the purpose of safe release of his kidnapped son. While criminally intimidating the complainant, accused had also taken a precaution to conceal his name and place of abode for which he was booked for an offence u/s 387/507 IPC vide FIR No. 20/96 on complaint made in this regard by the complainant and he was arrested in this case but later on was released on bail by the court orders being involved in a non bailable offence. After completion of investigation chargesheet was filed against him in this court.
2. Cognizance of offence was taken against the accused by the FIR NO. 20/96 Page 2 of 21 pages 3 learned predecessor of this court and he was summoned to face trial. The accused had also duly appeared before the court to contest this case on merits. Charge for the offence punishable under Section 387/507 IPC was framed against the accused on 20.03.02 to which he had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. However, later on accused was produced by his surety on 26.11.10 and he was taken into custody again and thereafter he had remained in judicial custody throughout the trial.
3. In order to substantiate its version, prosecution had examined 14 witnesses. PW1 Satish Chand, complainant had stated that on 10.01.96, his son Neeraj aged about 6 or 7 years had gone to Gandhi Memorial School, Mauni Baba Mandir, Brahm Puri in gali no.12. His son used to return back at 1:00pm but on that day he did not return from the school. He had tried to trace his son but he could not trace him. Therefore, he lodged his complaint Ex. PW1/A at police station Seelam Pur. After about 10days of the missing of his son he had started receiving ransom calls from Khurja. The person who had called him on telephone informed FIR NO. 20/96 Page 3 of 21 pages 4 him that his son was with him and he had demanded Rs.20,00000/ as ransom for releasing his son. The matter was settled for Rs.8,00,000/. He had never met the accused despite fixing several occasions for meeting. He had deposed that when SHO PS Seelam Pur had arrested the accused his son was not with him as the accused was merely trying to extort money. His son was never recovered by the police. This witness was not cross examined by the accused despite opportunity given in this regard.
4. PW2 Raj Kumar had deposed that earlier he was working at Pankaj Associates at Shivam Market, Sector 22, Noida. Accused Sunder was his material uncle's son . It was about 4/6 years back that accused Sunder had came at his office and had asked him if he wanted to earn quick money . He had enquired the accused as to in what manner he could earn. Accused had shown him a newspaper cutting which was regarding missing of a boy. Thereafter, the accused had told him that he would make a call at the residence of the missing boy and would ask for ransom money by saying that the missing boy was in their custody. He FIR NO. 20/96 Page 4 of 21 pages 5 had refused to do this work. Thereafter, the accused had persuaded one of his friend Inder Bhati but he had also refused to join his plan. Thereafter, accused went away. He could not recollect what had happened later on. Accused was arrested and his personal search was taken vide personal search memo Ex. PW2/A. This witness was not cross examined by the accused despite opportunity given in this regard.
5. PW3 Jaspal had deposed that on 06.03.96 he was working at Bhagwati Service Station, Sector 12, Noida as a Helper. Police had made enquiries from him but nothing was told by him to the police. Even he could not identify the accused present in the court on the day of his deposition. He had turned hostile and was cross examined by the learned Addl. PP for State.
6. During his cross examination by learned Addl. PP on behalf of State, PW3 had deposed that he had not given any statement to the police. He had denied the suggestion put to him by learned Addl. PP that he had given his statement to the police. He had admitted that Sh. Rajbir Singh was also a helper and Sri Pal was FIR NO. 20/96 Page 5 of 21 pages 6 the cashier and Sh. Rajbir had gone with the petrol pump owner, Sh. Anil Rahul. He had further denied the suggestion that one Sunder known to Sri Pal came at the petrol pump at about 8:30pm and had requested them to make a telephone call and he had made a telephone call from inside the cabin. He had further denied the suggestion that he had not identified the accused present in the court as he had been won over by him. This witness was not cross examined by the accused despite opportunity given in this regard.
7. PW4 Sh. Rajbir had deposed that on 06.03.96 he was working at the aforesaid petrol pump as a Helper. During enquiry conducted by the police official from him he had deposed that he did not know anything about the present case. This witness had also turned hostile and learned Addl PP had cross examined him.
8. During cross examination by learned Addl PP for the State, PW4 had admitted that Sh. Rajbir Singh was also a helper and Sri Pal was the cashier and Sh. Rajbir had gone with the petrol pump owner Sh. Anil Rahul. He had denied the suggestion put to him FIR NO. 20/96 Page 6 of 21 pages 7 by learned APP that one Sundar known to Sri Pal came at the petrol pump at about 8:30pm and had requested them to make a telephone call and he had made a telephone call from inside the cabin. He had further denied the suggestion that he knew accused Sundar. This witness was also not cross examined by the accused despite opportunity given in this regard.
9. PW5 Ct. Rajesh had deposed that on 30.06.96, he was posted at Police Post Usman Pur, Delhi police station Seelampur. He alongwith SI Rajesh, Ct. Chaina Ram and accused Sunder had gone to Bhagwati Service Centre, Noida Sector12 and the accused had pointed out the place from where he had made a telephone call to the complainant on 02.03.96. IO had prepared pointing out memo Ex. PW5/A. Thereafter, they alongwith the accused had gone to main road, Khurja, District Bulandshahar and accused had pointed towards a telephone booth and stated that he had also made a telephone call to the complainant. IO had prepared the pointing out memo Ex. PW5/B. He was cross examined by learned defence counsel on behalf of accused.
FIR NO. 20/96 Page 7 of 21 pages 8
10. During cross examination on behalf of accused, PW5 had admitted that there was office bearer on the telephone booth as well as the patrol pump where accused had pointed out the place of making telephone call. He had admitted that no public witness was joined by the IO at the time of pointing out and preparation of pointing out memo. He could not recollect the name of the owner of the patrol pump as well as the name of the owner of the telephone booth of main road Khurja. He could not recollect if any siteplan was prepared by the IO at the time of pointing out of the place.
11. PW6 Ct. Chana Ram besides reiterating the facts as narrated earlier by PW5, had also deposed that IO had prepared the pointing out memos Ex. PW5/B &PW5/C in his presence. During cross examination on behalf of accused by learned defence counsel, he had deposed that IO had not asked any public person to join the investigation at that time. At the petrol pump IO had enquired from some employees of the petrol pump but they were not cited as witness at the pointing out memo of the FIR NO. 20/96 Page 8 of 21 pages 9 accused.
12.PW7 ASI Yogesh had deposed that on 11.01.96 he was posted at police station Seelampur and was working at duty officer from 4:00pm to 12:00midnight. He had proved the carbon copy of FIR as Ex. PW7/A. He had also made endorsement on the application after registration of the case as Ex. PW7/B. During cross examination he had denied the suggestion put to him by learned defence counsel that the application was fabricated to implicate the accused in the present case.
13. PW8 Nathu Singh had deposed that on 10.01.96, one child Neeraj son of Satish had come to school in LKG class. Later on he came to know that the said child had never returned to his house. He had narrated this fact to police who had recorded his statement Ex. PW8/A. During cross examination on behalf of accused, he had deposed that Ex. PW8/A was not his statement but a written copy prepared at the time of submission of register to the police. He had admitted that the original register Mark A was lying with the case file since its taking into possession by the FIR NO. 20/96 Page 9 of 21 pages 10 police and they never took it back as he never felt any need to take back the same.
14. PW9 Inspector Rajender Prasad had deposed that on 02.05.96, he was posted at PS Seelampur. On that day, investigation of this case was marked to him. He had further deposed that no accused was arrested by him nor any recovery was effected by him. He was not cross examined on behalf of accused despite opportunity given in this regard.
15. PW10 SI Rajesh Sharma had deposed that on 02.05.96, he was posted as SI at PS Seelam Pur. On that day, investigation of the present case was marked to him by the SHO concerned. He had searched for the missing boy Neeraj but he could not be traced. He had served notice under Section 160CrpC upon the grandfather of the accused. On 29.06.96 accused Sunderpal Singh was brought by his family members in the police post New Usmanpur, police station Seelampur who was interrogated regarding the case and he was personally searched vide personal search memo Ex. PW2/A. Accused had made disclosure FIR NO. 20/96 Page 10 of 21 pages 11 statement Ex. PW10/A to him.
16. During cross examination on behalf of accused by learned defence counsel, he had deposed that it was on the basis of voice identification of accused Sunderpal Singh conducted by father of the missing child that he had issued search slip against him on 02.05.96. He could not recollect if the father of missing child was previously known to accused Sunderpal Singh or not. He had further deposed that when he had taken over the investigation there was nothing on record regarding voice identification of accused Sunderpal Singh by the father of missing child. He had not recorded statement of the father of the missing child in respect of voice identification of the accused. He had denied the suggestion put to him by the learned defence counsel that interrogation of the accused was already on record and due to this reason he had been falsely implicated by him in the false case and that he had not investigated the case properly. He had admitted it to be correct that during the course of investigation the voice of the accused was not recorded and no process was used to identify FIR NO. 20/96 Page 11 of 21 pages 12 the voice of the accused. He had not obtained the signatures of the family members of accused Sunderpal on any exhibits. He had further denied the suggestion that their signatures were not obtained because they had not surrendered the accused before the police and had never visited the police station alongwith the accused.
17. PW11 Inspector Arvind Kumar had deposed that seizure memo Ex. PW8/A of attendance register was prepared by him.
18.During cross examination, PW11 had denied the suggestion that the Manager of the school namely Nathu Singh had presented the said register. He had further denied the suggestion that the same was fabricated by the police party to suit the prosecution story and the said register did not belong to Gandhi Memorial Public School.
19.PW12 Retired ACP Ram Kishan had deposed that on 12.08.96, he was as SHO PS Seelampur. Investigation of the present case was carried out by SI M.A. Khan and SI Rajesh Sharma. He had also examined complainant Satish Chand on 12.08.96 under Section FIR NO. 20/96 Page 12 of 21 pages 13 161 Cr.P.C. and SI Ramavtar. Accused Sunder Pal who was arrested by SI Rajesh Sharma was also interrogated by him at that time but no clue of the missing boy was found. He was cross examined by the accused but nothing material could be extracted from his cross examination and only formal suggestions were put to him.
20. PW13 Gopal Sharma had deposed that presently he was practicing as an Advocate at Civil Court, Khurja. Earlier he was running a STD Booth probably 20 years back at Old Tehsil Road, Khurja. 1214 years back police of PS Seelam Pur had come to his booth and accused was also accompanying the police party. Police had enquired from him as to whether the accused had made any phone call from the STD booth or not. He had identified the accused as his customer who usually used to make calls at his STD booth. He had also turned hostile and was cross examined by learned APP on behalf of State.
21. During cross examination by learned APP, he had deposed that he could not tell the exact date on which the accused had come FIR NO. 20/96 Page 13 of 21 pages 14 to his telephone booth to make phone call. He could not recollect whether on 02.03.96 accused had come to his STD Booth to make any call or not.
22.During cross examination by learned defence counsel on behalf of accused, PW13 had deposed that he could not recollect if police had recorded his statement in this case or not. He could not tell the date,month and year on which the police had enquired him. The police had not received any proof regarding his STD booth. He had no proof of closing the said both in the year 1998. The STD booth usually remained opened only from 6:00am to 12:00 midnight and remained closed thereafter. He could not tell any details of the calls made on 02.03.96.He could not tell the name of any customer who made call on 02.03.96 from his telephone booth. Police had not taken his machine into possession. His STD telephone number was 243969. He had further deposed that police had not asked him about telephone number of his booth nor he had given telephone number of his booth. He had not given any bill of his telephone booth to the police because it was FIR NO. 20/96 Page 14 of 21 pages 15 not asked by the police officials. The name of the machine on telephone booth was Peptellor. He had admitted that he had come to this court a number of times.
23. PW14 Inspector M.A.Khan had deposed that on 11.01.96, he was posted as SI at police station Seelampur and on that day investigation of this case was entrusted to him. During investigation of this case, he had sent the wireless messages and hue and cry notices were also issued. The efforts were made to trace out kidnapped child. Two telephone numbers of the complainant were put under observation. On 07.03.96, the complainant told him that he had received ransom calls on 03.03.96 and 06.03.96. The details of the telephone calls were obtained. On checking of the telephone call details it was found that the calls were made from the number of the petrol pump situated at Sector 22, Noida, UP. Further investigation had revealed that the calls were made by accused Sunder, resident of village Kalhena of Bulandshahdar District. Accused was not traced out despite efforts made in this regard. On 30.04.96 he was FIR NO. 20/96 Page 15 of 21 pages 16 transferred and he had handed over the case file to MHC(R).
24. During cross examination on behalf of accused, he had denied the suggestion put to him by learned defence counsel that the name of the accused Sunder was not detected during his investigation up to 30.04.96. He had further denied the suggestion he had not conducted the investigation fairly and was deposing falsely that the name of the accused was revealed during his investigation. He had tried to search the accused. He had denied the suggestion that the file was not having any detail of the name of the accused till 30.04.96. He had further denied the suggestion that the investigation of the present case was transferred to another IO for further investigation as he had not properly conducted the investigation.
25. Thereafter, PE was closed.
26.Accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C and the entire incriminating evidence appearing on record against him had been put to him in his vernacular language to which he had stated that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated. He did not FIR NO. 20/96 Page 16 of 21 pages 17 lead any D.E.
27. After appreciation of the testimonies of the witnesses as well as the material placed on record by the prosecution, I have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
28. It is worthwhile to mention here that complainant had no where stated in his examination before the court that either the accused was arrested at his instance or was identified by him nor he had stated that he had identified the voice of accused as the person who used to make him telephone calls as deposed by PW10. Further, as per the complainant's version he had started receiving the calls immediately after 10 days from the date when his child had gone missing which means that since the child had gone missing on 10.01.96 then the complainant might have started receiving such calls for ransom on or around 20.01.96 whereas the allegations against the present accused pertained to calls allegedly made by him on 2nd March, 3rd March and 6th March 1996, however investigation has totally remained silent about the FIR NO. 20/96 Page 17 of 21 pages 18 persons or the numbers from where and by whom the calls were made to the complainant between 20.01.96 to 02.03.96. Complainant had categorically stated that it was the SHO PS Seelampur who had told him about the arrest of the accused and he himself had not made any efforts either to identify the accused or his voice. No expert was examined to prove the voice resemblance of the accused with the recorded conversation. In fact no recording of the conversation was either produced before the court nor it was sent to FSL for the scientific voice comparison with the sample voice of the accused taken by the IO to prove the allegations against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt.
29. If the testimony of PW2 is considered then as per this witness accused had only made an offer to him to allegedly make quick money by demanding ransom which was though declined by him as well as by one of his friend Inder Bhati. However, even this PW had neither deposed precisely as to whether the said plan was actually implicated and acted upon by him or not. PW3 & PW4 who were the alleged eye witnesses of the telephone calls FIR NO. 20/96 Page 18 of 21 pages 19 allegedly made by the accused from Bhagwati Service Station had turned hostile and had not supported the case of investigating agency. PW5 is a formal witness of the pointing out memos allegedly prepared at the instance of accused. However, during his cross examination he had categorically admitted that no public person and independent witnesses were joined by the IO while preparing such pointing out memos. Further, he could not tell the name of the owner of the petrol pump as well as the STD booth and even did not know as to whether any site plan was prepared by the IO at the time of pointing out of the place by accused which fact casts a serious shadow of doubt on investigation. PW6 and PW7 were again formal in nature being the witnesses to pointing out memo as well as the duty officer. PW8 was again formal witness who had not supported the case of investigating agency. Same is the case with PW9 as well who had also neither arrested the accused nor any recovery was effected by him. PW10 had miserably failed to depose as to how and when and in what manner he had started suspecting the accused of his FIR NO. 20/96 Page 19 of 21 pages 20 alleged involvement in the present case and during his cross examination had categorically admitted that no voice of accused was either recorded nor any process was used to identify his voice which is a serious lapse in the investigation on the part of the IO.
30. There is no element of any previous acquaintance, friendship or enmity between the parties, hence the investigating agency had also miserably failed to prove the alleged motive of the present accused behind making such ransom calls to the complainant.
31. PW11 was a neutral and impartial witness who had deposed nothing incriminating against the accused, so was PW12. PW13 was the alleged owner of the STD booth who had also turned hostile and had not supported the case of investigating agency regarding making of any such ransom calls from his STD booth by the accused in his presence. PW14 who was also one of the IO of the present case had not arrested the accused nor he had conducted any investigation to match the voice of the accused with alleged recorded conversation. Rather petrol pump was stated to be situated at Sector 22 Noida and not at Sector 12 Noida FIR NO. 20/96 Page 20 of 21 pages 21 as deposed by him during his examination in chief.
32.Hence, all these short falls in the story of investigation agency casts a serious shadow of doubt as well as dent in the authenticity, truthfulness and genuineness of prosecution story.
33.It is a cardinal principle of law that prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and all the benefits arising from the lacunaes of the prosecution must be given to the accused. Hence in my opinion, prosecution has failed to bring such material on record which would have gone to establish the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt holding him guilty for the offence alleged to have been committed by him resulting into his conviction and sentence. Accused is, therefore, acquitted for the offence u/s 387/507 IPC. His bail bond/surety is discharged and cancelled. File be consigned to record room after completion of other necessary formalities in this regard. ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 02.06.2011.
(LOKESH KUMAR SHARMA) ACMMII, North East, KARKARDOOMA COURTS:
DELHI FIR NO. 20/96 Page 21 of 21 pages