Delhi High Court
Som Pal vs The State on 6 July, 2007
Author: R.S. Sodhi
Bench: R.S. Sodhi, H.R. Malhotra
JUDGMENT R.S. Sodhi, J.
1. Criminal Appeal No. 464 of 2003 seeks to challenge judgment and order of Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 81 of 2001 arising out of F.I.R. No. 174 of 1999, registered at Police Station Keshav Puram, whereby the learned judge vide his judgment dated 21.2.2003 has held the appellant, Som Pal, guilty for offences under Section 452/364-A/342 IPC as also under Section 25/59 of the Arms Act. Further by his order dated 21.2.2003, has sentenced the appellant to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years under Section 452 IPC together with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default, further Rigorous Imprisonment for five months. He was further sentenced to life imprisonment together with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for ten months under Section 364-A IPC. He was further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default, further Rigorous Imprisonment for one month under Section 342 IPC as also Rigorous Imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default further Rigorous Imprisonment for one month under Section 25 of the Arms Act. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. However, the appellant was awarded the benefit of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Brief facts of the case as have been noted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the judgment under challenge are as under:
...that on 27.5.99 in between 1.30 or 2 pm when the complainant, Smt. Sneh Kapoor, her mother in law Smt. Lajwanti and his male child namely Rahul aged about 3 ½ years were present at their house No.B-2/43 C, Keshav Puram, Delhi, the accused Som Pal came there and asked for water and when said Smt. Sneh Kapoor came inside the house to bring water and gave him water she found that her said minor child Rahul was in the hands of accused Sompal and on asking by Smt. Sneh Kapoor as to what he was doing, the accused immediately took out the knife from his pant and threatened her not to raise any alarm or to close the door and accordingly said Smt. Sneh Kapoor got frightened. The accused thereafter immediately took the minor child Rahul into the room where her mother in law was inside and bolted the door from inside of the said room. The accused Sompal started threatening that he will kill the minor child Rahul in case he is not paid ransom of Rs. 3 lakhs as a result of which said Smt. Sneh Kapoor raised alarm and people from the neighborhood collected there and after sometime police personnels reached at the spot who made their best efforts to get the door of the said room opened by pursuing the accused. By seeing through the said window of the said room it was found that the accused Sompal had placed knife on the neck of the said child Rahul inside the room and had been demanding for ransom amount of Rs. 3 lakhs for the release of the said child and accordingly the senior police official also reached at the spot and after taking the assistance from the NSG Commandos for conducting the rescue operation by blasting the door of the room with a dynamite, ultimately the minor child namely Rahul and his grandmother Smt. Lajwanti were got released from the unlawful custody of the accused from the said room and the accused was arrested and necessary action taken against him.
3. The prosecution in order to establish its case examined as many as 19 witnesses. Of these, material witnesses are PW-2, Ramesh Chand Kapoor, father of the victim child Rahul; PW-4, Lajwanti, the grandmother of the child; PW-7, Sneh Kapoor, mother of the child; PW-5, DCP Satender Garg; PW-6, Shibesh Singh, ACP; PW-8, Vijay Jairam, even though he has been declared hostile; PW-9, SI Karan Singh and PW-19, SI Om Parkash, FRRO, New Delhi.
4. PW-2, Ramesh Chand Kapoor, stated that on 27.5.1999, he had gone out in connection with his business when at 5 p.m. he received an information on telephone that some miscreant had entered his house. He rushed back and saw a large crowd gathered in front of his house. Police party including DCP Satender Garg had already reached the place of incident. He came to know that one person had confined his son Rahul and his mother Lajwanti inside the room of his house. Negotiations with the kidnapper were going on prior to his reaching the place of incident. He came to know that a sum of Rs. 1 lac has already been given to the kidnapper and he was demanding a further sum of Rs. 2 lacs. He also demanded a pistol. On peeping through the window, he saw his child weeping and the kidnapper had placed the knife on his person. This witness asked the kidnapper to specify his demand upon which the accused replied that he had kept the child and his mother as hostages. When negotiations failed, NSG Commandos were called. They took control of the situation at the spot. They applied explosives on the door which was bolted from within. The blast broke open the door and the child and his mother were rescued. Some injuries were received by the accused. He was removed to the hospital by the police. The child and his mother Smt. Lajwanti also received injuries and were taken to Sunder Lal Jain Hospital. A sum of Rs. 1 lac was recovered from the room consisting of notes of 100 rupees denomination. In cross-examination, it was elicited that the accused had done some rubbing work at the house through contractor Ram Kishan along with other labourers. The payment had been made to the contractor Ram Kishan. The money paid to the kidnapper was recovered from the room by the police. He denied the suggestion that the accused who had worked in his house has not been paid wages and it was on this account that he was implicated.
5. PW-4, Smt. Lajwanti, aged about 80 years, deposes to the effect that she knew that accused Som Pal had worked in their house under the contractor. On the day of the incident, she was present inside the house and the child Rahul was outside the house at that time while her daughter-in-law was present in the house. The accused came and demanded water. Her daughter-in-law gave water and at that time Rahul came in. The child was caught by the accused and brought in the room where this witness was sitting. The accused entered the room and attempted to close the door. When this witness asked him as to why he was closing the door, the accused brandished knife and caused injury on her hand with the knife. The accused thereafter removed the bed to the other side and sat thereon with the child. He demanded ransom. The witness does not know how much amount he demanded as she was too perplexed. In cross-examination, it was elicited from her that she saw accused taking the boy when he entered the room. She tried to open the door and the accused gave knife blow on her right hand which started bleeding. Police people rescued them from the clutches of the accused at about 10 p.m. She also identified the accused in court.
6. PW-5, Satender Garg was posted as DCP when he received an information that a lady and one child have been confined inside the room. He reached the spot and saw that accused had confined an old lady and a child as hostages inside the room. The accused had knife which he had placed over the neck of the child. The room was bolted from within. The accused was asked to open the door but he did not do so. The accused demanded cash and a revolver. Senior officers reached the spot and contacted NSG Commandos who reached the spot and took the control of the situation. The Commandos blasted the door and rescued the child and the lady from the accused. In cross-examination, the witness merely reiterated his earlier testimony.
7. PW-6, Shibesh Singh, ACP, deposes that on 27.5.1999, he was posted at Police Station Ashok Vihar and received an information that a person has entered H. No.B-2/43 C, Keshav Puram and confined one child and an old lady at the point of knife. He rushed to the spot and saw the accused was holding the child on his lap and placed knife on the neck of the child. He saw this from the window of the room. The accused demanded Rs. 3 lacs and came to know that the mother of the child had already handed over a sum of Rs. 1 lac to the accused. NSG Commandos were called in who applied explosives to the door and rescued the child as also the old lady from the accused, who was thereafter taken into the custody.
8. PW-7, Smt. Sneh Kapoor, deposes to the effect that she knew accused prior to the incident as he had worked in their house about a year back. He worked through contractor Ram Kishan. On 27.5.1999 while she, her mother-in-law and son Rahul were present in the house, accused Som Pal came there and demanded water which this witness served. The accused was giving aversive replies and acting strange. The accused once again demanded water at which time her son Rahul came from outside. The accused lifted Rahul in his lap. The witness protested but the accused warned her not to raise an alarm. He brandished knife and placed the same on the neck of Rahul. The witness was frightened where after the accused took the child into a room. At that time, the accused was not aware that her mother-in-law Smt. Lajwanti was already sitting inside the room. The accused bolted the said room from inside. The witness raised an alarm as also rushed to the neighbourers but nobody came to her help. The accused demanded Rs. 3 lacs but she did not have that much money with her. On continuous raising of alarm, some person informed the police who came there and broke open the wire mash of the window. Total cash of Rs. 1 lac was given to the accused through the window. Thereafter, NSG Commandos came there. They applied explosives and blasted the door. Smt. Lajwanti and the child Rahul were rescued. The cash given to the accused was recovered. In cross-examination, it was elicited from her that Rs. 30,000/- were lying at the house while remaining were collected from the relatives who had reached at the house. She stated that Rs. 10,000/- was paid to her by her neighbour Jasvinder. She denied the suggestion that the accused has been falsely implicated as he was demanding his wages.
9. PW-8, Vijay Jairam, supports the version of PW-7, Sneh Kapoor. However, he was sought to be cross-examined by the prosecution on certain material omissions. PW-9, SI Karan Singh, was posted in Fist Battalion. He received message from DCP that Commandos are urgently required in Keshav Puram. They assembled and on reaching the spot, he saw that the accused had confined the child and an old woman in a room in the flat and had placed knife on the neck of the child. The NSG Commandos placed dynamite at the doors of the room and blasted the doors. The accused was apprehended with the knife and the lady and the child were rescued.
10. PW-13, Dr. Raj Mahender Singh, examined Master Rahul and found two parallel linear marks of fresh injury over left side of chin with clotted and dried blood and an abrasion over the right front of chin. He also examined SI Karan Singh, PW-9, for injuries through the blast. MLCs were prepared by the doctors. PW-19, SI Om Parkash, is the Investigating Officer who upon investigation presented the challan. The accused was examined under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure and took up the stand that he has been falsely implicated on his demanding money for the work done.
11. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that although the incident cannot be disputed yet, the demand for ransom sounds unnatural. He contends that there is nothing on record to show as to how Rs. 1 lac was collected on the spot and how Rs. 70,000/- was collected on the spot from relatives and paid to the accused even prior to the police having arrived at the spot. He submits that the theory of demand of ransom has been introduced merely to bring the case under Section 364-A IPC.
12. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, on the other hand, contends that the demand of ransom has been testified to by number of witnesses and that Rs. 1 lac were recovered at the spot vide its recovery memo. She contends that it would not be possible to have foisted this money on the accused in such a short time merely to falsely implicate the accused under Section 364-A IPC.
13. Having heard counsel for the parties, we have carefully gone through the record of the case as also the depositions and material placed before us. Confining ourselves to the arguments advanced, we find from the testimony of PW-7, Sneh Kapoor, that she, at that point of time, had Rs. 30,000-40,000/- in her house and that Rs. 70,000/- were collected by her from her relatives who also reached the spot shortly. We also find from the depositions of PW-8, Vijay Jairam, PW-9, SI Karan Singh, PW-19, SI Om Parkash as also PW-4, Smt. Lajwanti and PW-5, DCP Satender Garg, that a demand of cash for release of the detainees was made by the accused and that Rs. 1 lac was given which amount was recovered from the room pursuant to the rescue operation. The stand taken by the appellant that he has been falsely implicated on account of non-payment of wages does not appear to be sound. Such a rescue operation could not have been stage-managed merely to deny wages to the appellant, who was a construction worker.
14. Having carefully examined the judgment under challenge, we find the trial court has analyzed the material before arriving at its conclusion. We find no infirmity in the reasoning and evaluation of material by the trial court. Having re-evaluated the material ourselves, we have come to the conclusion that the judgment of the trial court suffers from no infirmity. Criminal Appeal No. 464 of 2003 is dismissed. Criminal M.B. No. 740 of 2005 also stands dismissed.