Delhi District Court
State vs . Vinod Kumar Yadav on 13 October, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. AKASH JAIN, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE06, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
State Vs. Vinod Kumar Yadav
FIR No : 102/06
U/s : 363/511 IPC
PS : Parliament Street
JUDGMENT
a) Sl. No. of the case : 92/02
b) Unique Case ID No. : 02403R0425562006
c) The date of commission of the
offence : 27.05.2006
d) Name of the complainant : Smt. Dilara Begum
e) Name, parentage & address
of accused : Vinod Kumar Yadav S/o Ram Avtar Yadav
R/o House No.84/7, Gupta Colony, Sangam
Vihar, New Delhi.
f) Offences complained of : 363/511 IPC
g) The plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
h) Final Judgment : Convicted
i) Date of institution of case : 26.07.2006
j) Date of final arguments : 11.09.2014
k) Date of Judgment : 13.10.2014
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
1. In the present case chargesheet was filed by the State under Sections 363/511 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter mentioned as 'IPC') against the accused Vinod Kumar Yadav on 26.07.2006. The case of the prosecution is that on 27.05.2006, at about 03:00 am, at Dharna Sthal, Patri CC NO.92/02 FIR No.102/06 Page no. 1 of 7 Jantar Mantar Road, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of police station Parliament Street, the accused Vinod Kumar Yadav attempted to kidnap Imam Hussain aged about five months out of custody of Smt. Dilara Begum without her consent and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 363/511 of IPC.
2. On the basis of aforesaid chargesheet, Ld. Predecessor Court took cognizance of the offence under Section 363/511 IPC against the accused. Upon appearance of the accused, the documents were supplied to him in compliance of Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter mentioned as 'Cr.P.C.'). Charge under Section 363/511 IPC was framed against the accused by Ld. Predecessor Court to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial on 22.08.2006. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for prosecution evidence.
3. In support of its case against the accused, prosecution examined as many as six witnesses. PW1 is HC Dharampal Singh, who deposed that on 27.05.2006, on receipt of DD no.32A, he alongwith Ct. Harbans Lal reached at the spot at Jantar Mantar Road, where he met with Smt. Dilara Begum and she made a complaint against the accused Vinod Kumar Yadav and she also produced him. PW1 recorded her statement as Ex. PW1/A and prepared rukka Ex. PW1/B. PW1 thereafter sent the same to police station through Ct. Harbans Lal for registration of the case. After registration of the case Ct. Harbans Lal came at the spot alongwith SI Ramesh Chand to whom the further investigation was entrusted.
CC NO.92/02 FIR No.102/06 Page no. 2 of 7
4. PW2 is SI Ramesh Chand, who deposed that on 27.05.2006, he received the copy of FIR no.102/06 alongwith rukka from Ct. Harbans and on receiving the same he alognwith Ct. Harbans reached at the spot at Jantar Mantar Road where Smt. Dilara Begum met him. He prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant as Ex. PW2/A. PW2 further deposed that HC Dharampal also met him at the spot and produced the accused Vinod Kumar Yadav who was also identified by the complainant. PW2 thereafter, arrested the accused vide memo Ex. PW2/B. He recorded statements of the witnesses. After completion of the investigation, he put up the challan before SHO concerned for final report.
5. PW3 is complainant/ Smt. Dilara Begum, who deposed that she did not remember the date and month of incident but it was in the year 2006. On that day, she was sitting on dharna at Jantar Mantar alongwith her five month old son Imam Hussain. At about 02:30 am in the night when she was sleeping alongwith her son, suddenly her eyes got opened due to pulling out of the cloth which was attached to her son and she got off and found that her son was picked up by the accused. Her son was in his lap. She raised alarm and accused left her son there and started running. On hearing her voice some sardar persons who were on another dharna and Sikandar Khan came and caught hold of the accused whose name was later revealed as Vinod Kumar. Police came and recorded her statement as Ex. PW1/A. PW3 correctly identified the accused in the court.
6. PW4 is Sikandar Khan, who deposed that on 27.05.2006, he was CC NO.92/02 FIR No.102/06 Page no. 3 of 7 sleeping at the dharna and at 02:30 am he got up due to some noise. As soon as he got up, he saw that the accused had thrown the child which he was carrying and accused started running. PW4 chased him and caught him near the mazar and he was brought to the spot and taken to the police station. Thereafter, police recorded his statement. PW4 correctly identified the accused in court and stated that the child was son of Dilara Begum who was sleeping there.
7. PW5 is Ct. Harbans Lal, who deposed on the lines of testimony of PW1. He correctly identified the accused in court.
8. PW6 is SI Roshan Lal, who proved registration of FIR in question as Ex. PW6/A. Endorsement on the same being Ex. PW6/B.
9. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed by Ld. Predecessor Court on 07.01.2012. The matter was then proceeded for recording of statement of accused under Section 281 r/w Section 313 Cr.P.C. Statement of accused was duly recorded wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused. Accused disavowed all the allegations against him and stated that he is innocent and falsely implicated in the present case. The accused further wished to lead defence evidence.
10. Accused examined one Sikender Rajak as DW1. DW1 deposed that on 26.05.06, he alongwith accused went to Lady Harding Hospital for doing mason work. DW1 further deposed that after doing work from the hospital CC NO.92/02 FIR No.102/06 Page no. 4 of 7 he came back home early and accused Vinod Kumar told him that he would do overtime labour work in the hospital. DW1 further deposed that on that day, he went to his native place at about 7.30 PM. DW1 stated that the accused is a very good person and is not addicted to any intoxicants. DW1 admitted the suggestion given by Ld. APP for State that he was not present with the accused on the date and time of incident. Thereafter, defence evidence was closed.
11. Final arguments were heard on behalf of Ld. APP for state and the accused. After perusal of the record this court is of the view that in order to bring home guilt of the accused for the offence under section 363/511 IPC, the prosecution was required to prove following facts:
i) That on 27.05.2006, at about 03:00 am, at Dharna Sthal, Patri, Jantar Mantar Road, New Delhi, the accused attempted to take son of complainant, who was minor and aged about 5 months, out of the keeping of his lawful guardian i.e. his mother;
ii) That the above said act was committed by the accused without consent of guardian of the child i.e. complainant.
12. At the outset, presence of accused on the given date, place and time of incident is not disputed by him during entire trial. The same is also clear from the statement of accused recorded u/s 313 r/w Section 281 Cr.P.C. and from the suggestions given to prosecution witnesses by Ld. Counsel for accused during their crossexamination. The question which remains to be adjudicated is as to whether accused attempted to take away son of CC NO.92/02 FIR No.102/06 Page no. 5 of 7 complainant out of her keeping and without her consent.
13. In order to substantiate the above said fact, prosecution primarily relied upon the testimony of PW3/ complainant who categorically deposed that while she was sleeping alongwith her son at Jantar Mantar, at about 02:30 AM her eyes were suddenly opened due to pulling out of cloth which was attached to her son and she saw that her son was picked up by the accused and as she raised alarm the accused left the child there and ran away. Statement of PW3 was duly corroborated by another eye witness PW4 who reportedly caught hold of the accused by chasing him. Accused was correctly identified in the court by both complainant/ PW3 and PW4. Nothing material could be culled out from the crossexamination of PW3 and PW4.
14. Argument raised on behalf of accused that he was caught by mob due to mistake is without any merit as complainant/ PW3 clearly stated in her examination that she saw the accused while he was picking up her son and attempting to take him away. No possible reason for false accusation by complainant could be elicited by the accused. Moreover, argument raised on behalf of accused that PW3/ complainant was confronted on certain aspects during crossexamination which makes her statement non reliable holds no water, as the confrontations brought out in the testimony of PW3 are of trivial nature which are not fatal to the case of prosecution. This court is supported with the case of Shyamal Ghosh vs. State of West Bengal, (2012) CC NO.92/02 FIR No.102/06 Page no. 6 of 7 7SCC 646, wherein it was held that court should not draw any conclusion by picking up an isolated portion from the testimony of a witness without adverting to the statement as a whole. Minor inconsistencies or embellishments which do not affect the core of the prosecution case should not be taken to be a ground to reject the prosecution evidence in its entirety.
15. Keeping in view the facts, circumstances of the case and aforesaid findings, it is held that all the essential ingredients of offence in question are duly proved by the prosecution against accused beyond reasonable doubt. As such, the accused Vinod Kumar Yadav S/o Ram Avtar Yadav is held guilty and is convicted for the offence u/s 363/511 IPC.
Accused be heard separately on the point of sentence on 31.10.2014.
Announced in the open Court (Akash Jain)
on 13.10.2014 Metropolitan Magistrate06,
Patiala House Court,
New Delhi
CC NO.92/02 FIR No.102/06 Page no. 7 of 7