Delhi District Court
State vs . Jamil Ahmed S/O Rahish Ahmed, R/O ... on 12 February, 2009
1
IN THE COURT OF DR. R.K. YADAV : DISTRICT JUDGE-VII/NORTH-EAST-CUM-
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE : KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI :
S.C. No. 45/08
State Vs. Jamil Ahmed S/o Rahish Ahmed, R/o Village Puraini, PS Dataganj,
District Badayun, Uttar Pradesh.
FIR No. 182/06
PS Khajuri Khas
U/s 363/364A IPC.
J U D G E M E N T :-
Stung by lust bug, a labourer decided to kidnap a young boy for ransom. He had worked in the house of Dinesh Kumar Sahni for renovation of the house for about one and a half month. He could assess financial position of Sh. Sahni, during that period. His son Arvind Kumar, aged about 6 years fell prey to him. On 29.04.06, he kidnapped Arvind Kumar and took him to village Ujhani, Distt. Badayun, U.P. Dinesh Kumar Sahni lodged a report, which became bedrock of the case. Investigation was taken up by Rakesh Kumar SI. During the course of investigation, it revealed that Arvind Kumar was last seen by Champa Devi, who runs a provision store, with Jamil Ahmed. Jamil Ahmed demanded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for release of Arvind Kumar by making a telephone call on mobile phone of Dinesh Kumar having No.9810691021 from a mobile phone No. 9319457257. Said telephone mobile was of Badayun, U.P. Police party reached village Ujhani along with Dinesh Kumar Sahni and others, where accused Jameel was overpowered. At the instance of accused Jameel, Arvind Kumar was recovered from house of Rukhsana, sister of the accused. In that process, Rukhsana managed her escape good. Investigation culminated into a chargesheet against the accused.
2. Charge for offence punishable under section 363 and 364A of the Penal Code was framed against the accused, to which charge he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. To substantiate the charge, prosecution has examined Smt. Champa Devi (PW1), Subhash Chand, Head Constable (PW2), Dinesh Kumar Sahni (PW3), Arvind Kumar (PW4), Nathu (PW5), Abdul Nazim (PW6), Keshav Dev, Head Constable (PW7), Khem Chand, Constable (PW8), Rakesh Kumar Gupta @ Guddu (PW9), Raj Kumar Yadav (PW10), Ms. Poonam Chaudhary, ADJ (PW11), Neeraj Kumar, 2 Constable (PW12) and Rakesh Kumar SI (PW13) in the case.
4. Subhash Chand, Head Constable, was working as duty officer at PS Khajuri Khas on 29.04.06. He recorded missing report of Dinesh Kumar, vide DD No.17A. He proved copy of it as Ex.PW2/A. Keshav Dev, Head Constable, was deputed to work as duty officer at PS Khajuri Khas on 30.04.06. He recorded formal FIR and proved copy of it as Ex.PW3/A. Khem Chand, Constable, joined investigation on 30.04.06. He detailed all investigative steps, which took place in his presence, unfolding as to how accused was arrested and Arvind was recovered at his instance. Neeraj, Constable, had also narrated those very investigative steps, which took place in his presence. Rakesh Kumar SI conducted investigation of the case. He arrested the accused and recovered Arvind from the house of his (accused) sister, deposes the witness. Ms. Poonam Chaudhary, then ld. Magistrate, recorded statement of Arvind Kumar under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code), which is Ex.PW4/A. She proved her certificate given underneath said statement as Ex.PW11/B.
5. Smt. Champa Devi unfolds that she runs a kiryana shop at her house. On 29.04.06 at about 5pm, she was present at her house. Accused Jameel came at her shop along with a child and purchased toffee for him. On that very day, at about 5.15pm, mother of the kidnapped child was searching for her son and in that connection, she came to her house for making enquiries about her son, unfolds the witness. Dinesh Kumar Sahni narrates that on 29.04.06, his son Arvind, aged about 6 years, had gone out of house at about 4pm, but did not return. After searching him till 9pm, he went to PS and lodged missing report Ex.PW2/A in the PS. Next day, he got a clue from Champa Devi, to the effect that his son was last seen with the accused. On 30.04.06, he went to PS and lodged FIR against the accused. He unfolds that the accused made a telephone call and demanded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for release of his son. He led the police party to the house of Udham Singh, who took them to the house of Nathu. Nathu was joined in the investigation, who led the police party to village Puraini and introduced them to Abdul Nazim. Abdul Nazim led them to village Ujhani, from where the accused was arrested. At the 3 instance of the accused his son was recovered from the house of his (accused) sister. Accused was arrested and brought to Delhi. Nathu and Abdul Nazim substantiated the facts unfolded by Dinesh Kumar Sahni. Arvind Kumar, the child witness, projects that he was kidnapped by the accused, who demanded ransom for his release from his father. Police reached and he was rescued.
6. Rakesh Kumar Gupta runs a PCO in Ayodhyaganj, Ujhani, from where a ransom call was made to the father of Arvind Kumar. He made an entry in register kept at his PCO. He proved that entry recorded in the register. Raj Kumar Yadav had proved call details of phone number 9319457257 installed at the PCO, from where a telephone call was made to phone number 9810691021, on 30.04.06. He had proved those call details as Ex.PW10/A (running into 16 pages).
7. In order to afford an opportunity to explain circumstances appearing in evidence against the accused, he was examined under section 313 of the Code. He denied all allegations levelled against him. His case has been of denial simplicitor. He projects that he has been falsely framed in the case. He claims himself to be innocent. He opted not to lead any evidence in his defence.
8. Arguments were heard at bar. Sh. R.K. Pandey, ld. Prosecutor, presented facts on behalf of the State. Sh. V.K. Singh, Advocate, had advanced arguments on behalf of the defence. I have given my careful considerations to arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously perused the record. My findings on the issues involved in controversy are as follows :-
9. Defence assails testimony of Dinesh Kumar Sahni, Champa Devi, Nathu, Abdul Nazim, Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Raj Kumar Yadav, Khem Chand, Constable, Neeraj, Constable and Rakesh Kumar SI, claiming that facts deposed by them are contradictory to each other. Sh. V.K. Singh, Advocate, argued that the witnesses are not worthy of credence. When testimony of Dinesh Kumar Sahni was perused, it came to light that he projects that the accused had worked as labour at his house when renovation work was got done. This fact was not at all disputed. His testimony makes it clear that the accused became acquainted with Arvind Kumar, son of Dinesh Kumar and that fact gave him an opportunity to become friendly with the boy.
4 He availed that opportunity and kidnapped him. He was seen in the company of Arvind by Champa Devi, to whose shop he had gone to purchase toffee. Abdul Nazim had also seen him along with the kidnapped boy. Depositions of the aforesaid witnesses are consistent. No material discrepancy was noted in their depositions. Facts unfolded by them are in consonance with ordinary human behaviour and natural course of events. It was not projected at all that the witnesses were bearing hostility against the accused. No efforts were made to show that these witnesses were not men of veracity or they entered the witness box on receipt of bribe or some offer of temporal gain. Their demeanour was found to be normal and satisfactory, when efforts were made to purify their depositions by way of ordeal of cross- examination. Close perusal of their depositions highlights that facts unfolded by them detail true sequence of events. No inherent infirmity was noticed in their depositions. Facts unfolded by them were confirmed by the victim Arvind Kumar. Hence, I conclude that the aforesaid witnesses are worthy of credence and their depositions can be considered while adjudicating accountability of the accused.
10. Dinesh Kumar Sahni unfolds that on 29.04.06 around 4pm his son Arvind Kumar, aged about 6 years, had gone out of the house. He did not return. He searched for his son and then lodged a missing report, which is Ex.PW2/A. Next day, he heard from Champa Devi that she had seen Arvind Kumar with Jamil Ahmed. Accused Jamil Ahmed had worked in his house as beldar for one and half months prior to that day. On 30.04.06, he went to police station and lodged a case against Jamil Ahmed, carbon copy of which is Ex.PW3/A. Champa Devi told that accused had brought Arvind to her shop for getting chocolates. He went to the house of Udham Singh, a contractor, who had sent accused Jamil Ahmed to work as beldar in his house. He received a telephone call from accused Jamil Ahmed, who had demanded a sum of Rs.2 lacs from him for release of his son Arvind Kumar. Udham Singh produced another beldar, who had also worked in his house along with Jamil Ahmed. He along with that beldar and police proceeded for village of accused Jamil Ahmed. There they reached around 4am. Neither Jamil Ahmed nor his son was found in his house. From there, they went to another village where sister of accused Jamil Ahmed was 5 residing. His son Arvind Kumar was recovered from her house. Recovery memo Ex.PW3/B was prepared. Accused Jamil Ahmed was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW3/C. PCO booth register was seized by police vide memo Ex.PW3/D. Said register is Ex.P1. After recovery of Arvind Kumar, they came back. Arvind Kumar was taken to a Magistrate, who recorded his statement. His mobile phone was seized by police, vide memo Ex.PW3/F. Said mobile phone is Ex.P2.
11. Smt. Champa Devi gives confirmation to facts unfolded by Dinesh Kumar Sahni. She tells that she runs a kiryana shop in H.No. E-32, Street No.20, 4th pusta, Yamun Vihar, Delhi. On 29.04.06 at about 5pm, accused came to her shop along with son of Dinesh Kumar Sahni. Accused had purchased toffee from her shop for the child. On that very date at about 5.15pm, mother of kidnapped child was making search for her son. When she came to her house, she informed those facts to her. Accused was known to her since he was working as mason in the house of Dinesh Kumar Sahni.
12. Nathu reaffirms facts unfolded by Dinesh Kumar Sahni. He deposed that on 30.04.06, Udham Singh along with Dinesh Kumar Sahni came to him and inquired about Jamil Ahmed. He informed them that Jamil Ahmed had come to meet him one day prior and told that he would go to his village. He was asked to accompany the police party to his village. Therefore, he along with Dinesh Kumar Sahni went to village Puraini, Police Station Dataganj, Distt. Badayun, U.P. Accused was not found in his house. On inquiry he told to the police party that Jamil Ahmed may be found in the house of his sister at village Ujhani. Then police party took him to village Ujhani. In the village, he told that Abdul Nazim can tell as to where house of sister of accused was located in the village. He took police to the house of Abdul Nazim. Thereafter, he was relieved.
13. Abdul Nazim unfolds that on 01.05.06, Nathu along with Rakesh Kumar SI and Dinesh Kumar Sahni came to his house. They inquired about accused Jamil ahmed. He told that the accused came to him one day prior, during noon hours along with a child, who was crying. Accused unfolded that the child was his sister's son. He was joined in the investigation and he led the police party to the house of sister of 6 accused. At about 6.30pm, accused was apprehended by police, at his instance. On interrogation, accused told that child was was in the house of his sister. Accused led to the house of his sister from where the child was recovered. It was the same child, who was brought by accused Jamil Ahmed to his house. Accused was apprehended and documents were prepared at the house of his sister.
14. Khem Chand, Constable, projects that on 30.04.06 he along with Dinesh Kumar Sahni and Rakesh Kumar SI had gone to house of Champa Devi, who informed that Jamil Ahmed came to her shop along with the child on 29.04.06. Thereafter, they went to house of Udham Singh in Kinari Bazar, Chandni Chowk, Delhi, who told that Nathu Singh and Jamil Ahmed were resident of Badayun, U.P. Nathu informed that Jamil Ahmed was residing at the house of his maternal grand father in village Puraini, PS Dataganj, Distt. Badayun, U.P. On 30.04.06, he along with B.P. Sharma, Inspector, Dinesh Kumar Sahni, Neeraj Constable and Rakesh Kumar SI left for Badayun, U.P. They reached there around 4am on 01.05.06. They went to PS Dataganj and from there local police was associated. Thereafter, they went to house of maternal grand father of Jamil Ahmed at village Puraini, where he was not available. Nathu Singh told that sister of Jamil Ahmed lives in village Ujhani, Distt. Badayun, U.P. He led the police party to the house of Abdul Nazim, who was common friend of Nathu Singh and Jamil Ahmed. Abdul Nazim informed that Jamil Ahmed came to him along with a child. They waited for Jamil Ahmed. They went to Mohalla Chattiya and at about 7pm accused came out of house of his sister. He was apprehended. He was interrogated. He led the police party to the house of his sister, namely, Ruksana. Said house was bolted from outside. On entering the house, Arvind Kumar was found sitting on a cot. Dinesh Kumar Sahni identified him. Arvind Kumar had also recognized his father. Dinesh Kumar Sahni had informed that accused had given him a telephone call for ransom. On interrogation, accused told that ransom call was made from PCO booth at Kachla road, Ujhani. He led the police party to that PCO from where register Ex.P1 was seized. Accused was arrested. They came back to Delhi and seized mobile phone of the complainant.
15. Neeraj, Constable, also deposed in the same vein. He unfolds that accused 7 Jamil Ahmed was arrested from village Ujhani and at his instance kidnapped child was recovered. Register of a PCO was seized, from where accused made ransom call to Dinesh Kumar. Said register is Ex.P1. Mobile phone No. 9810691021, on which accused made a ransom call, was also seized from the complainant. Said mobile phone is Ex.P2. Rakesh Kumar SI also detailed those very facts in his testimony. He presents that accused Jamil Ahmed was arrested from village Ujhani, where police party was led by Abdul Nazim. At the instance of accused, Arvind Kumar was recovered from house of Ruksana, sister of the accused. Accused led the police party to a PCO booth from where he had made ransom call. Register of said PCO booth was seized, which is Ex.P1. Accused and Arvind Kumar were brought to Delhi. Here in Delhi, he had seized mobile phone of Dinesh Kumar Sahni, which is Ex.P2. Arvind Kumar was produced before the ld. Magistrate, who recorded his statement under section 164 of the Code. Ruksana, sister of the accused, had absconded. She was proceeded under sections 82 and 83 of the Code and was got declared as proclaimed offender. He collected call details of mobile phone No. 9810691021, which details are Ex.PW10/A.
16. Rakesh Kumar Gupta projects that on 30.04.06, he was running a PCO booth at Ayodhyaganj, Sabzi Mandi, Ujhani, Distt. Badayun, U.P. On that day around 10.04am, one person came and made a telephone call to mobile phone No. 9810691021 from phone No. 9319457257, installed at his shop. He used to maintain a register, where he used to record telephone number on which a call was made from his PCO. Entry Ex.PW9/A was recorded by him in the register, kept at his PCO booth, which is Ex.PW9/B (said register was exhibited as Ex.P1 in statement of witness referred above). Police came to his shop next day and seized register Ex.PW9/B, vide memo Ex.PW3/D.
17. Raj Kumar Yadav, Nodal officer, was brought in the witness box to prove call details of mobile phone No.9319457257, which were proved by him as Ex.PW10/A (running into 16 pages). Perusal of Ex.PW10/A makes it clear that a call was made from mobile phone No.9319457257 to mobile phone No.9810691021 at about 10.04am, on 30.04.06. These facts give confirmation to events unfolded by Rakesh 8 Kumar Gupta. It also gives corroboration to facts unfolded by Dinesh Kumar Sahni, wherein he testified that accused made ransom call on his mobile phone on 30.04.06 and demanded a sum of Rs.2 lacs for release of his child.
18. Register Ex.P1 (which was also exhibited as Ex.PW9/B) was prepared by Rakesh Kumar Gupta in the course of his business, wherein he used to make entries in respect of phones on which call was made from his PCO. An entry Ex.PW9/A was recorded in that register by Rakesh Kumar Gupta in the course of his business. Said entry is relevant under section 34 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, entry recorded in register Ex.P1, which is Ex.PW9/A, gives confirmation to facts unfolded by Dinesh Kumar Sahni.
19. Out of facts unfolded by Dinesh Kumar Sahni and Smt. Champa Devi, it came to light that on 29.04.06 Arvind Kumar, son of Dinesh Kumar Sahni, aged about 6 years, went missing around 4pm. At about 5pm that day, accused went to shop of Champa Devi to purchase chocolates for Arvind Kumar. At about 5pm, mother of Arvind Kumar went at the shop of Champa Devi in search of her missing son. Out of circumstances detailed by Dinesh Kumar Sahni and Champa Devi, it has been brought over record that Arvind, a boy aged about 6 years, was enticed by accused Jamil Ahmed and taken out of keeping of Dinesh Kumar Sahni, without his consent. All ingredients for offence kidnapping have been brought over record.
20. Dinesh Kumar Sahni unfolds that Ransom of Rs. 2 lacs was demanded by accused Jamil Ahmed for release of his child, by giving a call on his mobile phone. Facts on that count are brought over record through deposition of Rakesh Kumar Gupta, who presents that a telephone call was made from his PCO on 30.04.06 at about 10.04am on mobile phone No.9810691021 from mobile No. 9319457257. He made entry Ex.PW9/A in register Ex.P1 (also exhibited as Ex.PW9/B). Raj Kumar Yadav also confirms that phone call was made from mobile phone No.9319457257 on 30.04.06 at about 10.04am, which fact has been detailed in Ex.PW10/A. Therefore, it has been brought over record that a phone call was made by the accused to Dinesh Kumar Sahni. Register Ex.P1 was seized from PCO of Rakesh Kumar Gupta at the instance of accused Jamil Ahmed, which fact has also been 9 established through deposition of Khem Chand, Constable, Neeraj, Constable and Rakesh Kumar SI. Out of evidence brought over record, it has been brought to light of the day that accused kidnapped Arvind Kumar, son of Dinesh Kumar Sahni, who was aged about 6 years, and made a ransom call demanding Rs.2 lac for his release.
21. Arrest of accused Jamil Ahmed and recovery of Arvind Kumar at his instance from the house of his sister Ruksana in village Ujhani, PS Dataganj, District Badayun, U.P., has been established through deposition of Dinesh Kumar Sahni, Abdul Nazim and police officials referred above. Nathu Singh brings link evidence on the record, who led the police party to the house of Abdul Nazim, at whose instance accused was arrested and kidnapped child was recovered.
22. Arvind was also brought in the witness box. He unfolds that accused met him outside his house and told him that he would get chocolates for him. Accused took him to the shop of Babita, which was near his house and got chocolates for him. He took him to Badayun in a bus. He had taken him in the house of his sister. Accused told him that he would release him after getting money from his father and demanded money for that purpose. Police reached there and he was rescued from there. He was brought to Delhi and his statement Ex.PW4/A was recorded. Facts in that regard are reaffirmed through depositions of Poonam Chaudhary, ADJ, (then Magistrate) who recorded statement of Arvind Kumar under section 164 of the Code. She had proved statement Ex.PW4/A, besides her certificate Ex.PW11/B given underneath said statement.
23. Question for consideration comes as to whether Arvind Kumar is competent to testify? It is a settled proposition of law that no precise rule can be laid down respecting degree of intelligence and knowledge, which will render a child a competent witness. In practice, it is not unusual to receive the testimony of children aged between 8 and 9 years when they appear to possess sufficient understanding. As a matter of prudence, the court are generally chary in putting absolute reliance on the evidence of a solitary witness and look for corroboration of the same from other circumstances of the case. But when evidence is found reliable the courts accept it. The Apex Court accepted evidence of a child of five years in Suresh (AIR 1981 SC 10 1122), who was sole witness to murder by a domestic servant. A village girl of 13-14 years managing household chores was held not to be a child witness in Devi Nandan (1987 Cr.L.J. 1016). In Tarlal Singh (AIR 1979 SC 1374), a child witness was found to be competent to testify. In S.D. Mohite (AIR 1975 SC 55) only witness examined by the prosecution to prove facts was a teenager, who was found to be truthful. Therefore, it is apparent that a child witness may be competent to testify, if he or she appears to be intelligent for his or her age.
24. Arvind Kumar unfolds that accused was known to him, who met him outside his house. He makes it clear that accused had done construction work at their house, that is why, he was known to him. Accused induced him saying that he would get chocolates for him and took him to shop of Babita to purchase chocolates and then took him to Badayun, UP. He was taken to a house of his sister. He made ransom call and demanded money for his release from his father. Here in the case, Arvind Kumar appeared before the Court with beaming eyes, confidence over his face, with candour of self possession. He narrated facts with full confidence, coherently and clearly. He fared well in cross-examination. Therefore, it is apparent that he is reliable and worthy of credence. His testimony can safely be considered for adjudicating accountability of the accused. When testimony of Arvind Kumar is read in evidence, it gives strength to facts unfolded by Dinesh Kumar Sahni, his father. It stands established out of events referred above that accused kidnapped Arvind Kumar, a boy aged about six years, took him to the house of his sister in village Ujhani, PS Dataganj, Distt. Badayun, U.P., and demanded ransom money of Rs.2 lac for release of the child.
25. Prosecution has been able to establish all ingredients for offence punishable under section 363 and 364A of the Penal Code against the accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubts. Accused has failed to raise even an iota of doubt in the case. He could not dispel the story of prosecution at all. Consequently, it is announced that prosecution has been able to establish guilt of the accused for offences punishable under sections 363 and 364A of the Penal Code, beyond doubt. He is, therefore, held guilty and convicted for said offences.
Announced in the Open Court (Dr. R.K. Yadav) On this 4th day of February, 2009. District Judge-VII/NE-cum-ASJ, Delhi.
11 IN THE COURT OF DR. R.K. YADAV : DISTRICT JUDGE-VII/NORTH-EAST-CUM-
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE : KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI :
S.C. No. 45/08
State Vs. Jamil Ahmed S/o Rahish Ahmed, R/o Village Puraini, PS Dataganj, District Badayun, Uttar Pradesh. FIR No. 182/06 PS Khajuri Khas U/s 363/364A IPC.
ORDER ON THE POINT OF SENTENCE :-
Leniency in punishment has been claimed by Sh. V.K. Singh, Advocate, pleading therein that it is not the rarest of rare case, where capital punishment should be awarded to the convict. He presents that convict is a young man aged about 21 years. According to him, he is the only bread earner to support his family. He claims leniency in sentence.
2. Jamil Ahmed worked as beldar in the house of Dinesh Kumar Sahni in March-
April, 2006. He assessed his financial position and decided to kidnap his son Arvind Kumar, aged about 6 years, for ransom. On 29.04.06, he kidnapped Arvind Kumar and took him to village Ujhani, District Badayun, U.p. On 30.04.06, he gave a telephone call on mobile phone of Dinesh Kumar Sahni demanding ransom of Rs.2 lacs for release of the child. Police came in action. The police party headed by Rakesh Kumar SI along with Dinesh Kumar Sahni and others went to village Ujhani, Distt. Badayun, U.P., and overpowered the convict. Arvind Kumar was recovered from his possession. Therefore, circumstances detailed above highlight that a young boy was kidnapped by the convict for ransom.
3. Circumstances detailed above nowhere make out a rarest of rare case to award capital punishment to the convict. Taking into account facts and circumstances of the case and mitigating factors surrounding the convict, he is, hereby, sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for offence punishable under section 364A of the Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, he would further undergo RI for one year. He is also sentenced to undergo RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- for offence punishable under section 363 of the Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, he would further undergo RI for four months.
12
4. Substantive sentences awarded to the convict shall run concurrently. Out of fine, if recovered, a sum of Rs.5,000/- be paid to Dinesh Kumar Sahni as token of compensation. A copy of judgement and order on sentence be supplied to the convict free of cost.
Announced in the Open Court (Dr. R.K. Yadav) On this 12th day of February, 2009. District Judge-VII/NE-cum-ASJ, Delhi.