Delhi District Court
Sc No. 31/05, Fir No. 652/97 1 State vs Smt. Saroj Etc. on 25 February, 2008
SC NO. 31/05, FIR No. 652/97 1 State Vs Smt. Saroj etc.
IN THE COURT OF SH. VINOD KUMAR
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, NEW DELHI
SC No. 31/05
FIR No. 652/97
PS Ambedkar Nagar
U/s 363/368/364A IPC
State Vs 1. Smt. Saroj
W/o Kellector Singh
R/o Vill. Nagli Dholna
Distt. Etta, U. P.
2. Sheru @ Rakesh
S/o Dhayan Lal
R/o Hewali Thana - Baghwala
Distt. Etta, U. P.
3. Kellector Singh
S/o Kamal Singh
R/o Nagli Thana, Dholna
Distt. Etta, U. P.
4. Gautam
S/o Ganga Prasad
R/o Shahpur Thana Amapur
Distt. Etta, U. P.
5. Govind
S/o Ganga Prasad
R/o Shahpur Thana Amapur
Distt. Etta, U. P.
6. Bhura
S/o Ram Sahai
R/o Bhandera Thana Kotwali
Dehat Distt. Etta, U. P.
Date of institution : 13.8.1998
Date of arguments : 22.2.2008
Date of judgement : 25.2.2008
SC NO. 31/05, FIR No. 652/97 2 State Vs Smt. Saroj etc.
JUDGEMENT
1. The prosecution case in brief is that on 8.8.1997 complainant Mukesh Kumar (PW1) lodged a complaint Ex.PW1/A that he sells PAN, BIDI, Cigarettes on a Patri. His son namely Ankit aged five years was playing out side his house in Dakshinpuri in the evening on 6.8.1997 but he did not come back to home. He made lot of search and had also lodged a missing report with the police. When all efforts to trace out the child failed, complainant suspected that his child has been kidnapped and accordingly he lodged the FIR on 8.8.1997 at 12:50 am. Case was assigned to HC Balraj Singh for investigation.
2. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 7.8.1997 at about 7:00 or 8:00 pm one Munna Lal (PW5), a neighbour of complainant, received a telephonic call at his house from accused Kellector Singh that he should inform to complainant and one Kishan (PW8) that Ankit had been kidnapped by him and he demanded ransom of Rs.3,00,000/ and also told him that they should reach in jungle of Nagla Thani in District Etah along with the ransom money and in case the ransom money is not brought, they would receive the dead body of the child. Munna Lal(PW5) informed Kishan(PW8) about this telephonic call.
3. It is alleged that Kishan Kumar (PW8) along with two neighbours went to Nithauli, District Etah, U.P and told this fact to Raj Kumar (PW10), his brother in law. On 8.8.1997 Raj Kumar (PW10) along with Kishan (PW8) met SSP Etah. SSP Etah directed them to SHO PS Dholna and also sent SI Anand Prasad Sonkar with them to police station Dholna, District Etah and reported this matter. Police lodged zero FIR and the investigation was started by Inspector Vijay Kumar Singh SO PS Dholna. Inspector Vijay Kumar Mishra joined SI Satish Chand Sharma (PW14), SI Naresh Choudhary (PW15), SI Anand Prakash (PW16), SSI Harish Chand SC NO. 31/05, FIR No. 652/97 3 State Vs Smt. Saroj etc. Verma (PW17) and other police staff as well as Kishan Chand and Raj Kumar in the raiding party. All of them reached a town Bilram and joined one Sub Inspector from police post Bilram. They received a secret information that Kellector Singh and the others have kidnapped a child from Delhi and have confined him in a Makbara in jungle of Nagla Thari. The police party proceeded on vehicles on the main road and then proceeded into the jungle on foot through jungle path taking their positions. They reached the Makbara spot and surrounded it. The kidnapped child was in the lap of accused Smt. Saroj. Kishan Kumar identified the child. Accused persons, on seeing the police party fired at them. However police officials apprehended the accused persons namely Kellector Singh, Smt Saroj, Gautam, Govind and Bhure Singh. All the accused persons except accused Saroj were found having in possession the arms and ammunition. The arms and ammunition were seized and the child Ankit was recovered.
4. The police registered cases FIR No 110/97 to 114/97 U/S 147, 148, 149/307 IPC and 25 Arms Act, against accused Kellector Singh, Gautam, Govind and Bhure Singh who are facing trial in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Etah, U.P .
5. It is alleged that accused Sheru was apprehended by SI Radhe Lal P.S Kotwali Dehat, District Etah on 9.8.95 at about 11.30 pm when he was on patrolling duty at Gadanpur road. On the search of this accused, he was found having in possession one firearm 315 bore and two cartridges without any licence. A case FIR no. 133/97P.S Kotwali Dehat was registered against him U/S 25 of Arms Act.
6. As per prosecution case, the kidnapped child Ankit is the son of maternal uncle (Mama) of accused Sheru and Sheru was instrumental in kidnapping of this child.
SC NO. 31/05, FIR No. 652/97 4 State Vs Smt. Saroj etc.
7. On 14.8.1997 Ct. Arjun Singh from PS Dholna, District Etah, U. P. came to PS Ambedkar Nagar and handed over FIR No. 0/97, under Section 364A IPC along with its case diaries, memos, site plan etc. to HC Balraj Singh (PW12) the I.O. of the present case.
8. HC Balraj Singh procured production warrants against the accused persons and on 19.8.1997, he along with SI Vijay Singh and Ct. Shyambir went to District Etah to take the custody of the accused persons. However accused persons were not handed over to Delhi police.
9. Pursuant to the production warrants issued by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, accused persons were produced before Ld Metropolitan Magistrate, they were interrogated and their disclosure statements were recorded. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed before Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate. The case was committed to the Sessions Court.
10. After hearing the arguments, a charge under Section 363/368/364A IPC read with Section 34 IPC was framed against all the accused persons. All of them pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
11. In order to prove its case prosecution examined following witnesses.
(i) PW1 Mukesh is the father of the kidnapped child and on his statement Ex.PW1/A, the present FIR Ex.PW2/A was registered. He testified in his cross examination that accused Sheru is the son of his real Bua, who lives in District Etah. He testified that he had introduced accused Sheru in the business of lottery.
(ii) PW2 HC Karan Singh recorded FIR No. 652/97, under Section 363 IPC. Copy of which is Ex.PW2/A. SC NO. 31/05, FIR No. 652/97 5 State Vs Smt. Saroj etc.
(iii) PW3 Ct. Arjun Singh PS Dholna testified that 14.8.1997 he brought the documents of zero FIR, PS Dholna, under Section 364A IPC under the directions of the SO PS Dholna. He handed over the papers to duty officer, PS Ambedkar Nagar. HC Balraj Singh recorded his statement.
(iv) PW4 SI Mahesh Soni, PS Ambedkar Nagar got issued the production warrants of the accused persons and had produced the accused persons in the court of Ilaka Magistrate.
(v) PW5 Munna Lal lives in the neighbourhood of the complainant. As per prosecution case he received ransom call from accused Kellector Singh and that he informed PW8 Kishan about this fact. However this witness turned hostile
(vi) PW6 Sunita. She is the mother of the kidnapped child.
(vii) PW7 Ct. Shyambir. He took the rukka to the police station and got the FIR registered in PS Ambedkar Nagar.
(viii) PW8 Kishan Kumar, PW10 Raj Kumar and PW11 Vipin Kumar Gupta. PW8 Kishan Kumar is the brother of complainant Mukesh and PW10 Raj Kumar is brother in law of PW8. PW8 testified that on 7.8.1997, his neighbour Munna Lal came to his house and told him that one Kellector Singh called him on telephone and informed him that his gang had kidnapped the child Ankit and had demanded a ransom of Rs.3,00,000/. PW8 testified that Munna Lal told him that they should reach in the jungle of Nagla Thani, District Etah with the said ransom money otherwise the dead body of the child would be sent. On this PW8 went to Nithauli where his brother in law Raj Kumar (PW10) resides. It is further testified that he along with Raj Kumar and one Vipin Kumar Gupta (PW11) went to PS Dholna where he lodged his complaint Ex.PW8/A. Thereafter he along with Raj Kumar and police officials of PS Dholna went to jungle of Nagla Thani.
PW8 and PW10 both have testified that the accused persons were present near Makbara and all of them except accused Saroj were having fire arms. They testified that police officials over powered all the accused persons and recovered Ankit from the lap SC NO. 31/05, FIR No. 652/97 6 State Vs Smt. Saroj etc. of accused Saroj. All the accused persons apprehended at the spot and brought to PS Dholna. Ankit was given to PW8 on superdari vide superdaginama Ex.PW8/B. PW11 also testified that accused persons were arrested in his presence and child was handed over to Kishan in his presence.
(ix) PW9 Ct. Mahender. He brought Roznamcha entries of registere kept at PS Dholna He proved the relevant entries as Ex.PW9/A. He also proved the FIR No. 0/97, PS Dholna as Ex.PW9/B.
(x) PW12 HC Balraj Singh. He is the Investigating Officer of the present case.
(xi) PW13 SI Vijay Kumar. He was posted in PS Ambedkar Nagar and had moved an application before the concerned Magistrate for issuing production warrants of the accused persons.
(xii) PW14 SI Satish Chand Sharma, PW15 SI Naresh Choudhary, PW16 SI Anand Prakash Sonkar, PW17 SSI Harish Chand Verma are the police officials of U.P. Police. They were posted in District Etah, U. P. in PS Dholna or at other places. All of them were the members of a raiding party which rescued the kidnapped child Ankit from the jungle of Nagla Thani from the clutches of the accused persons. All of them have testified that accused persons were having a gun and country made pistols and there ensued an encounter in which all the accused persons were over powered and arrested. Child Ankit was sitting in the lap of accused Saroj. The child was recovered and was handed over to Kishan. A separate case against the accused persons regarding encounter and recovery of arms was registered in Etah and the same is pending trial.
12. In statement under Section 313 CrPC accused persons denied all the accusations. Accused Kellector Singh took the defence that accused Govind and Gautam were his real maternal uncles. Accused Sheru is the neighbour of his maternal uncle Govind. Accused Bhure is Sadu of his uncle Govind and that SC NO. 31/05, FIR No. 652/97 7 State Vs Smt. Saroj etc. accused Saroj is his wife. He stated that there was previous enmity and Smt. Sukhdevi the wife of accused Govind had caused injuries on complainant's family. A case was registered against his maternal uncle Govind Singh. Since he supported his maternal uncle, he was falsely implicated in the present case to teach them a lesson. The other accused persons have taken the same defence. However none of the accused preferred to lead evidence in their defence.
13. It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that there is no evidence on judicial file to connect accused Sheru with the present offence. Ld. Defence Counsel has drawn my attention to the testimony of PW1. In his cross examination he has testified that after receiving the telephone, 5 - 6 persons had gone to Etah including accused Sheru. Ld. Defence Counsel has drawn my attention to the testimony of PW6 Sunita. In her cross examination, she has testified that accused Sheru had accompanied her Jaith to Etah. Ld. Defence Counsel argues that if Sheru had gone with the accused persons to Etah, it is highly doubtful that he was instrumental in commission of the offence. Moreover his arrest with a fire arm in District Etah also appears to be highly doubtful.
14. It is further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that as per prosecution case PW5 Munna Lal had received the ransom call at the telephone installed at his house. PW5 has not supported this version while testifying in the court. Further more the prosecution has also not collecting any evidence, if any telephone is installed at his house. In these circumstances the testimony of PW8 Kishan Kumar that his neighbour Munna Lal had told him about the ransom call on telephone becomes highly doubtful. It is argued that prosecution has failed to lead any evidence to show that the kidnapping in question was done for ransom.
15. Ld. Defence Counsel has drawn my attention to various contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses and has argued that the prosecution case stands totally discredited on account of SC NO. 31/05, FIR No. 652/97 8 State Vs Smt. Saroj etc. these contradictions. Ld. Defence Counsel has drawn my attention to the cross examination of PW8 which is produced as under :
It is correct that a case against the accused persons was registered in PS Dhaulana as they were apprehended there and I was the witness in that case. My evidence was recorded in the court of Etah but I cannot say the name and designation of the court. I did not depose before the court in Etah that I did not received the telephone in Delhi for the ransom money of rs.3..0 Lakhs (Confronted with the certified copy of the statement recorded of witness Kishan Kumar in Session Case N.905/97, during cross examination in the court of VIIth Additional District Judge of Etah on 17.3.98 vide Ex.PW8/DA (running into 17 pages) where contrary statement was recorded). It is wrong that no such incident occurred.
16. Ld. Defence Counsel argues that in view of this material contradictions, the truthfulness of the witness stands shaken and therefore the testimony of this witness should be discarded being unreliable.
17. Ld. Defence Counsel has drawn my attention to the testimony of PW8 in which he has testified that he along with one Vipin Kumar and Raj Kumar reached PS Dholna and lodged a complaint Ex.PW8/A. Ld. Defence Counsel has drawn my attention that as per the prosecution case PW8 had received the ransom all on 7.8.1997 at about 7/8:00 pm, however it is very strange that in his FIR Ex.PW1/A which is lodged on 8.8.1997 at about 12:50 am, PW1 Mukesh does not refers to any ransom call, nor he mentions that his real brother Kishan had received such a ransom call from accused Kellector. Ld. Defence Counsel argued that this makes the testimony of PW8 and the prosecution case highly doubtful. Ld. Defence Counsel has drawn my attention to the fact that in the complaint Ex.PW8/A lodged by PW8 Kishan Kumar, there is specific reference of a ransom call by Kellector. Ld. Defence Counsel argued that this sequence shows that in fact accused Kellector had already been arrested and FIR was lodged thereafter and consequently it shatters the entire prosecution case. SC NO. 31/05, FIR No. 652/97 9 State Vs Smt. Saroj etc.
18. Ld. Defence Counsel argued that it is very strange that although in his complaint Ex.PW8/A, Kishan Kumar Gupta had made specific allegations that Kellector Singh had informed him on phone that his nephew was in custody of his gang and that he should bring Rs.3,00,000/ to Etah immediately and should get him released after paying the money in the jungle of Nangla Thani, failing which he would receive the dead body of nephew. On the other hand he testified in cross examination in Sessions Case No. 905/97 before 7th Additional Sessions Judge Etah on 17.3.1998 (certified copy of the same is Ex.PW8/DA) that no ransom money was demanded.
19. It is argued that the cumulative effect of all the circumstances make the prosecution version highly doubtful that the kidnapping in question was done for ransom.
20. It is argued by Ld. Defene Counsel that in fact the entire prosecution case suffers from serious infirmity. If the child was kidnapped, such kidnapping must have been seen by several persons and children of the locality. Further more PW8 in his cross examination has testified that from his house he went to bus stand for going Nitholi, whereas PW1 Mukesh Kumar has testified that they had gone in a hired car. Ld. Defence Counsel has drawn my attention to the testimony of PW6 Sunita who had testified that accused Sheru had gone with her Jaith to Etah, which is contrary to the prosecution case. Ld. Defence Counsel has further drawn my attention to the testimony of PW8 Kishan Kumar that he reached at Nitholi alone. Ld. Defence Counsel argues that he has given no explanation as to where his two neighbours, who had accompanied him, had gone.
21. I have considered all facts and circumstances of the case as well as evidence on record. None of the witnesses has testified that accused Sheru had kidnapped the child Ankit. None of the SC NO. 31/05, FIR No. 652/97 10 State Vs Smt. Saroj etc. police officials i.e. PW14 SI Satish Chand Sharma, PW15 SI Naresh Chaudhary, PW16 SI Anand Prakash Sonkar and PW17 SI Harish Chand Verma, nor PW8 Kishan Kumar, PW10 Raj Kumar and PW11 have testified that accused Sheru was arrested in the jungle of Nangla Thani along with the co accused persons. Therefore the only evidence against this accused is the disclosure statements which are confessional in nature and are not admissible in evidence. I therefore acquit accused Sheru.
22. Ld. APP argues that for the purpose of Section 364A IPC it is not necessary that actual ransom money should be asked. It is argued that as per Section 364A IPC there should be a reasonable apprehension arising out of the conduct of the accused persons that such a person may be put to death or hurt in order to compel Government or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay ransom. On the other hand Ld. Defence Counsel argues that actual ransom call is necessary to prove the offence. For this purpose it is necessary to read Section 364A IPC which reproduced as under :
23. 364A. Kidnapping for ransom, etc. Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction, and threatens to cause death or hurt to such person, or by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt, or causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government of [any foreign State or international intergovernment organization or any other person] to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom, shall be punishable with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.]
24. The relevant portions of the above stated section shows that conduct of the accused should give rise to apprehension that the kidnapped person would be put to death or hurt. Although actual ransom call is not necessary but prosecution must establish SC NO. 31/05, FIR No. 652/97 11 State Vs Smt. Saroj etc. that the conduct of the accused persons was such that it could have given rise to such an apprehension. In the present case PW5 Munna Lal has not supported the prosecution case that any ransom call was received at the telephone installed at his residence. PW8 was confronted with his statement Ex.PW8/DA which he made before Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Etah that he did not receive any ransom call in Delhi. Therefore there are two versions of PW8 before this court. It is settled law that when two views are equally possible, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused. It must be emphasized here that when the consequences of the conviction are grave, the responsibility of the trial court becomes greater. The offence under Section 364A IPC is punishable with either death or with imprisonment for life. Therefore in such cases the court has to tread a cautious path. Therefore as a matter of abundant caution, I discard the testimony of PW8 only to the extent that he had received a ransom call on the telephone installed at the house of PW5.
25. Ld. APP has drawn my attention that when the police officials of PS Dholna reached at the jungle, the accused persons were found armed with fire arms and they opened fire at police. This raises a reasonable apprehension that the kidnapped child may be put to death or hurt in order to compel his parents to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay ransom.
26. I disagree with Ld. APP. The conduct of the accused referred to in Section 364A IPC should be such that it should give reasonable apprehension that the child may be put to death or hurt. However the prosecution would have to prove independently that the conduct in question of the accused was aimed to compel Government or any person to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay ransom. Testimony of PW17 SI Harish Chand Verma that when raiding party took their positions and gheraoed the culprits, firing started on the part of the accused persons. There is no evidence that the accused persons threatened the police party to kill the child SC NO. 31/05, FIR No. 652/97 12 State Vs Smt. Saroj etc. or acted in such a way which could cause apprehension that they might kill or cause hurt to the said child. In fact from the perusal of the testimonies of the witnesses it appears that the kidnapped child was quite protected in the lap of accused Saroj. The conduct of the accused persons only shows that they fired in order to obstruct police officials from apprehending them and it would not be reasonable to presume that by firing at the police party, they caused apprehension of causing hurt or death to the kidnapped child.
27. In view of this discussions, I am of the opinion that ingredients of Section 364A IPC do not stand proved.
28. Ld. Defence Counsel has drawn my attention to the few contradictions and improvements which are mentioned above. In this regard I would say that the contradictions pointed out by Ld. Defence Counsel are very minor and arise out of the reasons that whereas the incident took place in the year 1997, the testimonies of the witnesses were recorded during the period 1998 upto the year 2004. The testimony of PW8 itself was recorded in the year 2000 i.e. about three years of the incident. Therefore such contradictions and anomalies are bound to occur due to lapse of time. It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that since court has disbelieved the testimony of PW8 that he had received a ransom call, the entire testimony of this witness stands discredited. I am of the opinion that when there are two contradicted testimonies of a witness, it is highly difficult to assess as to which one of the same is true. In the present case I have not given any categorical finding that testimony of PW8 regarding receiving of ransom call (as testified before this court) is false. I have only given benefit of doubt to the accused in view of a contrary statement made by this witness before Additional Sessions Judge, Etah. Therefore it cannot be said that PW8 is not reliable in respect of his remaining testimony. SC NO. 31/05, FIR No. 652/97 13 State Vs Smt. Saroj etc.
29. PW8 Kishan Kumar has testified that he along with Vipin Kumar and Raj Kumar had reached at PS Dholna. He lodged a complaint Ex.PW8/A and thereafter all of them along with the police officials of PS Dholna reached at the jungle of Nangla Thani. Accused persons namely Kellector Singh, Geetam, Bhure Singh, and Govind were having country made pistols whereas the child Ankit was recovered from the lap of accused Saroj. These accused persons were apprehended at the spot and Ankit was given to him on superdari vide superdaginama Ex.PW8/B. PW10 Raj Kumar, PW11 Vipin Kumar Gupta has also accompanied them and have fully supported the prosecution case. PW14, PW16 and PW17 are the police officials of District Etah, who were involved in this rescue operation. Their testimonies remain unshaken despite cross examination. Accused persons have not given any reasonable explanation as to why they were apprehended and implicated in the present case. In their statements under Section 313 CrPC accused Kellector Singh has taken the defence that he was framed because of the previous enmity. He stated that the wife of accused Govind had caused injury on the complainant's family and therefore a case was registered against his maternal uncle Govind Singh. He stated that Govind and Gautam are his real maternal uncles, accused Bhure is also a relative of accused Govind. He stated that accused Saroj is his wife and accused Sheru is the neighbour of accused Govind. However none of the accused were able to prove the enmity between the parties.
30. Perusal of PW1 Mukesh would show that the only suggestion given to him was there was a quarrel between him and accused Sheru on the share of lottery business. Similarly a suggestion in respect of some quarrel with accused Sheru only has been given to PW6 Sunita and PW8 Kishan Kumar. Therefore there is no reason as to why the witnesses would falsely testified against rest of them and why the police would falsely testify against them. SC NO. 31/05, FIR No. 652/97 14 State Vs Smt. Saroj etc.
31. In view of above discussions, I am of the opinion that prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused Saroj, Gautam, Govind, Bhure and Kellector Singh under Section 368/34 IPC only because although it has not been proved as to which of the accused had actually kidnapped the child, however these accused persons fully knowing that the child Ankit had been kidnapped wrongfully concealed and confined him in the jungle of Nangla Thani.
32. However prosecution has not been able to prove its case against accused Sheru and therefore he is acquitted. His bail bond and surety bond are cancelled.
33. The remaining accused persons stand convicted under Section 368/34 IPC.
Announced in the open court on 25.2.2008.
(VINOD KUMAR) Additional Sessions Judge Patiala House Courts New Delhi SC NO. 31/05, FIR No. 652/97 15 State Vs Smt. Saroj etc. IN THE COURT OF SH. VINOD KUMAR ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, NEW DELHI SC No. 31/05 FIR No. 652/97 PS Ambedkar Nagar U/s 368/34 IPC State Vs 1. Smt. Saroj W/o Kellector Singh R/o Vill. Nagli Dholna Distt. Etta, U. P.
2. Kellector Singh S/o Kamal Singh R/o Nagli Thana, Dholna Distt. Etta, U. P.
3. Gautam S/o Ganga Prasad R/o Shahpur Thana Amapur Distt. Etta, U. P.
4. Govind S/o Ganga Prasad R/o Shahpur Thana Amapur Distt. Etta, U. P.
5. Bhura S/o Ram Sahai R/o Bhandera Thana Kotwali Dehat Distt. Etta, U. P. ORDER ON SENTENCE
1. In the present case the offenders have been convicted under Section 368 IPC. This section punishes the offence in the same manner if the convicts had kidnapped with an intention to confine the kidnapped or abducted person. Therefore the convicts SC NO. 31/05, FIR No. 652/97 16 State Vs Smt. Saroj etc. shall visit the sentence which is provided for commission of offence under Section 365 IPC which extends to the imprisonment upto seven years and fine. Ld. Defence Counsel argues that convicts have suffered long custody period in jail and they should be released on imprisonment which they have already undergone during trial.
2. On the other hand Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor argues that the offence is of very serious nature. In the present case the kidnapped person was only three or four years of age. He was kidnapped from Delhi and taken to a far away place and was concealed in the jungle area of a remote village in U.P. It is argued that the convicts were found armed with fire arms and had also opened fire on the police party, who had gone to recover the child. It is further argued that the entire facts show as to what was the aim of the convicts in committing of this offence.
3. I have considered all facts and circumstances of the present case and I fully agree with Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor that convicts deserve no leniency. However I would treat the case of convict Saroj differently while sentencing her. She is the wife of convict Kellector Singh, who as per prosecution case, was the master mind of the offence. Although she cooperated with her husband and the kidnapped child was found in her lap, however at the same time it must not be forgotten that she is a lady from the poorest strata of the society and her social taboos and training might have prevented her from taking a decision independent from the wishes of her husband. Her situation can be understood from the fact that when she was arrested, she was already pregnant and therefore psychologically she must be totally dependent upon her husband. Even now when she is appearing before this court she is present with two minor children, one is about two and a half years old and the another is about five years old. Ld. Defence Counsel submits that she has five children in all, the eldest being 13 years of age and the youngest being 2 ½ years of age. Therefore in view of SC NO. 31/05, FIR No. 652/97 17 State Vs Smt. Saroj etc. her circumstances at the time of her arrest and her circumstances today that at least two of her five minor children are totally dependent upon her motherly care, I deem it appropriate to take an extremely lenient view in her case.
4. Convict Smt. Saroj was arrested on 8.8.1997 and she was remanded to judicial custody firstly on 9.8.1997 by the Judicial Magistrate, Etah and thereafter the first remand was granted by the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi on 16.8.1997. As per record she was admitted to bail on 25.5.1998 and therefore she remained in judicial custody for about nine months and sixteen days.
5. I sentence Smt. Saroj to imprisonment which she has already undergone in custody as mentioned above and a fine in the sum of Rs.100/. In default of payment of fine she shall further undergo simple imprisonment for seven days.
6. However rest of the convicts had taken active part in commission of this offence. In view of the seriousness of the offence and the fact that such offences are on steep rise, I do not find any ground to take a lenient view against any of them.
7. I therefore sentence convict Kellector Singh, Govind, Gautam, Bhura to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine in the sum of Rs.1000/ each. In default of payment of fine they shall undergone simple imprisonment for one month.
8. Ld. Defence Counsel prays that although in the present case convicts were sent to judicial custody on 16.8.2007, however they were arrested in a zero FIR of the year 1997 in Etah and they were sent to judicial remand by Judicial Magistrate Etah on 9.8.1997. Therefore it is prayed that the custody period should be counted from 9.8.1997. I fully agree with Ld. Defence Counsel in this regard.
SC NO. 31/05, FIR No. 652/97 18 State Vs Smt. Saroj etc.
9. Convict Kellector Singh has remained in judicial custody since 9.8.1997 till 30.4.2001.
10. Convict Govind, Gautam and Bhura have remained in judicial custody since 9.8.1997 till 12.5.2002.
11. Benefit under Section 428 CrPC be given to all of them. Bail bonds and surety bonds cancelled. Convicts be taken to custody to undergo the sentence.
12. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court on 25.2.2008.
(VINOD KUMAR) Additional Sessions Judge Patiala House Courts New Delhi