Delhi District Court
State vs Mandeep Kumar Sethi @ Vicky on 4 February, 2008
IN THE COURT OF SHRI MAHAVIR SINGHAL ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI. Case ID Number 02402R055 8 4 8 2 0 0 6 Session s Case Number 25 / 2 0 0 7 F.I.R. Number 254 / 2 0 0 6 Police Station New Usma n Pur Under Sectio n s 364A / 3 8 7 / 3 4 IPC Commi t t e d to Sessio n s on 18 th Ja n u a r y 2007 Argumen t s heard on 2 nd Febru a ry 2008 Date of Decision 4 th Febru a ry 2008 In the matter of: State VERSUS 1.
Mandeep Kumar Sethi @ Vicky, S /o Shri Suren der Kumar Sethi, R/o C 34 G1, DLF IInd Bhopur a, Sahibab a d, Ghaziaba d (U.P).
2. Zia ur Rehma n S /o Shri Jain u n n i n , R/o E 68, Gali No. 11, Chand Masjid, Shastri Park, Delhi.
3. Manish Kumar Alwana S /o Sh. Gulsha n Kumar, R/o C 63, First Floor, DLF II, Sahibab a d (U.P).
4. Robin @ Deepak Shar m a S /o Sh. Mahender Shar m a, R/o C 3 / 5 2, Dilshad Extension, DLF Colony, Sahibab a d (U.P).
5. Mahender Sharm a S /o Sh. Ram Vinod Shar m a, R/o C 3 / 5 2, Dilshad Extension, DLF Colony, Sahibab a d (U.P).
6. Vinod @ Binn u S /o Shri Brij Mohan, Pavi Road, Pooja Colony, Loni IInd, Ghaziabad.
Page 1 of 6
7. Wazid @ Mazid S /o Shri Sadiq Ali, R/o H.No. R54, Gali No. 22, Braha m p u ri, Delhi. ..... Accused persons J U D G M E N T
1. Accused Mandeep Kumar Sethi @ Vicky, Zia ur Rehma n , Manish Kumar Alwana, Robin @ Deepak Shar m a , Mahender Sharm a, Vinod @ Binn u and Wazid @ Mazid have been charged in respect of offences u / s 364A r/w Section 34 and u / s 387 r /w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Allegations against them are that from 14.7.2006 at 2:00 PM to 15.7.200 6 at 12:30 AM at House No. J 348, Gali No. 12A, Kartar Nagar, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of Police Station New Usma n Pur, they all in furthera n ce of their common intention, abducted Niranja n Singh S /o Shri Ramvir Singh for the purpose of ranso m of Rs.5 lacs, which was subseq ue n tly reduced to Rs.2 lacs and that they put Niranja n Singh in fear of death or grievous hurt in order to commit extortion of Rs. 5 lacs, which was subseq ue n tly reduced to Rs. 2 lacs.
2. Prosecution has examined complaina n t / victi m Niranja n Singh as PW1 in support of the case. He deposes that a bout one year ago in sum m er season at about 5:00 / 6 : 0 0 PM, 2 3 person s came to his hou se and took him to Bhopur a Border in a vehicle, may be Indica or Santro. They gave him beatings and dema n d e d Rs.5 lac. Page 2 of 6 Witness told them that he was not having money at that time and he might be released. Then, those persons released him and he came to his house. None of the accuse d persons, present in court, is amongst those person s, who came to his house, took him to Bhopur a Border, gave him beating and dema n de d Rs.5 lac. Witness has been cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP Shri Rames h Kumar for State. It is denied that on 14.7.200 6 at about 2:00 PM when witness was present at his house, accused Binn u , present in court, came to him and took him to Dilsha d Garden Flats in a Santro Car no. DL4CC 179. It is denied that there, some other boy also accomp a nied Binn u and they started giving beating to the witness. It is denied that accused Binn u and Mazid, present in court, gave beating to witness there. It is denied that both of them alongwith others were having arms with them. It is denied that accused Binn u and Mazid contin ue d giving beating to the witness and dema n d e d Rs.5 lac, otherwise they would kill him. It is denied that remaining accused person s, present in court, dema n de d Rs.5 lac and if witness would not be able to arra nge Rs.5 lac, he should have to pay Rs.2 lac immediately. It is denied that accused persons told the witnes s that if he would not be able to arra nge the said money, he would be killed by them. It is denied that witness stated the police in his stateme n t the mobile No. of accused Binn u as 98116 30800. It is denied that on 16.7.2006 witness pointed out House No. C 3 / 5 2 , Dilshad Extension, DLF Colony, Bhopur a, Page 3 of 6 Sahibab a d, Ghaziaba d and told the police that he was confined in the said house after being kidnappe d on 14.7.2006. It is denied that on 15.7.200 6 accus ed Mandeep Kumar got recovered one bag, which was given by the witness to the him on the pretext of containing Rs.2 lac. It is denied that all the accuse d person s present in court namely Mandeep, Zia Ur Rehma n , Manish Kumar, Robin @ Deepak, Mahen der Shar m a , Vinod and Wazid kidna ppe d Mahender the witness from his house and took him in a Santro Car to a flat situated at Dilshad Garden and gave beatings to him and dema n de d Rs.5 lac for releasing him. Opport u nity has been given to Ld. Counsel Shri Sarfraz Asif for accused Majid, Ld. Counsel Shri Manoj Kumar for accused Mandeep and to remaining accused person s to cross examine the witness. However, that opport u nity has not been availed of pres u m a bly becau s e PW has not supported the prosecution case.
3. In view of PW1 Niranjan Singh, who is the complaina n t / i n j u r e d, having not supported the prosecution case and also in view of the fact that there is no other public witness to prove the case agains t the accused person s, prosec ution evidence has been closed and recording of state me n t s u / s 313 Cr.PC of accus ed persons has been dispens ed with.
4. I have heard argu me n t s from both the parties i.e. Ld. Addl. PP Shri Page 4 of 6 Rames h Kumar for the State and Ld. Counsel Shri Sarfraz Asif for accused Majid and Ld. Counsel Shri Manoj Kumar for accused Mandeep and other accuse d in person. I have perused the record file carefully.
5. In criminal cases the onus of proving everything essential to the establish m e n t of the charge against the accuse d lies upon prosec ution; that onus never changes. This follows from the cardinal principle that the accused is pres u m e d to be innocent until his guilt is established by the prosecution.
6. As already noted, prosecution has examined complain a n t / victim Niranja n Singh as PW1, who has not supported the prosecution case as regards the accused persons being culprits either in examina tion in chief or in cross examina tion by Ld. Addl. PP Shri Rames h Kumar for the State.
7. In view of the evidence on record referred above, I am of the considered view that offences u / s 364A r /w Section 34 and u / s 387 r /w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code are not proved against accused Mandeep Kumar Sethi @ Vicky, Zia ur Rehm a n, Manish Kumar Alwana, Robin @ Deepak Shar m a , Mahender Sharm a, Vinod @ Binn u and Wazid @ Mazid beyond reason a ble doubt. Accordingly, accused Mandeep Kumar Sethi @ Vicky, Zia ur Page 5 of 6 Rehma n, Manish Kumar Alwana, Robin @ Deepak Shar m a , Mahender Shar m a, Vinod @ Binn u and Wazid @ Mazid are acquitted of the said offences.
8. Accused Vinod and Wazid @ Mazid are in judicial custody. They be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Personal bonds and surety bonds of accused Mandeep Kumar Sethi @ Vicky, Zia ur Rehma n , Manis h Kumar Alwana, Robin @ Deepak Shar m a and Mahender Shar m a. are cancelled. Their sureties are discharged. File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 4 th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 20 0 8 .
(MAHAVIR SINGHAL) Additional Sessions Ju dge Karkardoom a Courts Delhi 110032.
Page 6 of 6