Delhi District Court
State vs . Ulfat Singh Etc on 22 February, 2007
FIR NO. 26/2001; P.S. ANAND VIHAR 1
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJIV JAIN : ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : KARKARDOOMA COURTS :
SHAHDARA
STATE VS. ULFAT SINGH Etc
FIR NO. 26/2001
P.S. ANAND VIHAR
JUDGMENT U/S 363/368/34 IPC
A) THE SL. NO. OF THE CASE :
B) THE DATE OF COMMISSION
OF OFFENCE : 19.01.2001
C) THE NAME OF COMPLAINANT : Sh. Surender Kumar
D) THE NAME AND PARENTAGE
OF ACCUSED : Ulfat Singh @ Happy
S/o Tikam Singh
R/o Vill : Pawash, PS Dehat
Kotwali, Etah,
U.P.
Veenu @ Deep Singh
S/o Surajpal
R/o Vill : Pawash, PS Dehat
Kotwali, Etah,
U.P.
Bal Kishan
S/o Ram Swaroop
R/o Vill : Pawash, PS Dehat
Kotwali, Etah,
U.P.
E) THE OFFENCE COMLAINTD OF : 363/368/34 IPC
F) THE PLEA OF THE ACCUSED : PLEADED NOT GUILTY
G) THE FINAL ORDER : CONVICTED
FIR NO. 26/2001; P.S. ANAND VIHAR 2
H) THE DATE OF SUCH ORDER : 22.02.2007
I) THE BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1.In brief the prosecution case is that on 19.1.01 at about 11.30 am Sh. Surinder Kumar a halwai by profession was present in his house at 32/10, gali no. 7, Bhikam Singh Colony. He had sent his son Akash aged about 5 years to bring some goods from a shop in the gali. After purchasing the goods, he did not bring the balance amount, he again sent him to bring the balance however, he did not return. He searched for him, called the police at 100 number, lodged a missing report. On inquiry from the sources he came to know that his son was kidnapped by one Veenu @ Deep Singh resident of Eta, UP who used to work with him earlier.
2. A case was registered U/s 363 IPC. The police party went at the native place of Veenu but did not get any clue about the child, Veenu was also not found in his house. The police party then went at ISBT, Anand Vihar laid a trap. On 21.1.01 the police party alongwith Surender Kumar was present at bus stand, there they found accused Veenu, Ulfat Singh and Bal Kishan with the child Akash. They recovered the child from their possession and apprehended them. From the pocket of accused Ulfat Singh, a ransom note was recovered, Section 364A and 368 IPC were added. The ransom note was sent to handwriting expert for opinion alongwith specimen signatures and handwriting of Ulfat Singh. After examination it was found that the ransom note was in the hand of Ulfat Singh. After investigation all the accused were chargesheeted of offence punishable U/s 363/364A/368 IPC.
3. After complying with the provisions contemplated U/s 207 CrPC the case FIR NO. 26/2001; P.S. ANAND VIHAR 3 was committed to the Court of Sessions but it was remanded back by Ld ASJ with the observations that prima facie no case is made out against accused U/s 364A IPC and the case U/s 363/368 /34 IPC is made out. The charge was framed against the accused for offence punishable U/s 363/368/34 IPC. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. To prove its case prosecution examined as many as five witnesses.
5. Pw1 HC Lukman Ali recorded the FIR U/s 363 IPC Ex. Pw1/A. He also recorded the DD entry on receipt of call from wireless operator about missing of a child named Akash vide DD Ex. Pw1/C.
6. Pw2 Sh. Surender Kumar is the complainant / father of the child. He reproduced the facts as alleged in the complaint Ex. Pw2/A. He stated that he came to know from Joginder Singh that his son was taken away by Veenu . On 21.1.01 in the evening at about 6.30 pm, when he was searching his son with the police, he saw three persons with his son. He immediately told the police. He stated that police apprehended them and recovered his son from their possession. He stated that accused Ulfat Singh and Balkishan were holding his son with their hands being followed by Veenu . He stated that from the casual search of accused Ulfat Singh, one ransom letter Ex. P1 was recovered which was seized vide memo Ex. Pw2/C.
7. He admitted that accused Veenu had worked with him for about 1 ½ years and prior the alleged incident, he had left the job but he denied that he falsely implicated accused Veenu and other accused since he did not want to pay him the balance payment. He also denied the suggestion that his son was not FIR NO. 26/2001; P.S. ANAND VIHAR 4 kidnapped by accused Veenu . He further denied the suggestion that his son was not recovered from the possession of accused and they were picked from Eta, UP.
8. Pw3 Sh. Joginder Singh stated that on 19.1.01 at about 11 / 11.30 am he had seen accused Veenu with child Akash. He stated that when Surender Singh was searching his son, he informed that he had seen his son with accused Veenu. He denied the suggestion that he did not see accused Veenu .
9. Pw4 Akash is the star witness of this case. He correctly identified accused Veenu and stated that accused Veenu had taken him for sweets and toffees, but he instead took him to a place where there were many trees. He stated that two persons were also with him at the time when he was recovered by his father with police from a place where there were many buses. He could not identify the other two persons however, he stated that he was kept in a house by accused Veenu .
10. Pw5 SI Shailender Tomar is the investigating officer of this case. He made endorsement on the statement of Pw1, also went at the native place of accused Veenu and on 21.1.01 at about 6.30 pm at the instance of the complainant he arrested the accused Veenu and co-accused and recovered the child from their possession. He stated that one ransom letter Ex. P1 was recovered from accused Ulfat Singh which was seized vide memo Ex. Pw2/C and during investigation he recorded their disclosure statement. He also stated that he sent the letter for handwriting expert opinion and after collecting the report Ex. Pw5/H he submitted the chargesheet on the directions of SHO. This witness was also cross-examined at length. He denied the suggestion that the child was FIR NO. 26/2001; P.S. ANAND VIHAR 5 not recovered by the police from the possession of the accused and they were falsely implicated in this case by lifting them from their native place at District Eta, UP.
11. Accused were examined U/s 313 CrPC, they pleaded their innocence and stated that the child was not recovered from their possession or at their instance and they were falsely implicated in this case. They did not examine any witness in their defence.
12. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld APP for the State and Sh. Ashok Singhal Ld counsel for the accused persons and have gone through the evidence on record.
13. Ld counsel vehemently argued that Pw4 the child did not identify the other two persons who were with accused Veenu and there are contradictions on the date and time of recovery of the child from the possession of accused. Ld counsel stated that the constable who was allegedly present at the time of recovery is not examined by the prosecution. Further the departure / arrival entry are not proved by the prosecution, so in these circumstances the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused. Ld counsel stated that the complainant had to pay the dues to accused Veenu and in order to escape from his liability he after conniving with the police falsely implicated the accused persons.
14. Ld APP for the State on the contrary argued that from the possession of accused Ulfat Singh a ransom letter Ex. P1 was recovered, which was sent to CFSL for handwriting expert opinion. After examination it was found in the FIR NO. 26/2001; P.S. ANAND VIHAR 6 hand of accused Ulfat Singh and from this letter an inference can be drawn that the accused had kidnapped the child for ransom. Further the accused did not make any complaint that the complainant had to pay arrears of his salary.
15. I have carefully considered the submissions made above and have gone through the material placed before me.
16. In the instant case, the child who was examined as Pw4 categorically stated that accused Veenu had taken him for sweets and toffees but he instead took him to a place where there were many trees. He stated that he was recovered from a place where many buses were standing and at that time two more persons were also with the accused Veenu . Pw2 and Pw5 stated that when they were searching Pw4 at ISBT Anand Vihar they found accused Ulfat and Bal Kishan holding the hand of the child being followed by Veenu and from the possession of accused Ulfat Singh ransom note Ex. P1 was recovered. The handwriting expert report which is admissible in evidence U/s 293 CrPC also corroborates the testimony of Pw2 and Pw5.
17. Admittedly in the instant case accused could not send the letter to the complainant but the possession of the letter Ex. P1 shows that they had dishonest intention and with that intention accused Veenu with the help of other co-accused Ulfat Singh and Bal Kishan kidnapped the child. Pw2 and Pw5 stated that the child was recovered from ISBT Anand Vihar and their testimony is duly corroborated by the child Pw4 who stated that he was recovered by the police from accused Veenu and at that time two persons were also with him and at that place many buses were standing. ISBT Anand Vihar is a bus terminal where many buses stand.
FIR NO. 26/2001; P.S. ANAND VIHAR 718. Pw2 stated that he came to know from Joginder Singh that had seen his child with accused Veenu . Pw3 stated he had seen the child with accused Veenu and when Pw2 was searching his son, he informed him that he had seen the child with accused Veenu .
19. The child / Pw4 stated that he was kept in a place. From his testimony and the circumstances it can be gathered that he was kept at a secret place which was not accessible to the public at large. The child was kidnapped on 19.1.01, he was recovered on 21.1.01 so it is manifest that the child was kept at a secret place by accused Veenu .
20. Since the child could not identify the other accused and that the accused were not apprehended from the place where the child was kept, so it can not be said with certainty that accused Ulfat Singh and Bal Kishan were also with accused Veenu with the child was kept at a secret place.
21. From the testimony of Pw2, Pw4 and Pw5 I find that the child was recovered from the possession of the accused persons on 21.1.01 from ISBT Anand Vihar. The accused could not give any explanation how they got the custody of the child.
22. Nevertheless Ld counsel in the instant case stated that there are contradictions in the testimony of Pw2 and Pw5, but after carefully analysing the evidence I find both the witnesses have given the date of recovery of the child correctly, the place has been correctly mentioned by the witnesses in their testimony. Though there are some minor contradictions but they do not touch FIR NO. 26/2001; P.S. ANAND VIHAR 8 the root of the matter. Admittedly in this case the Constable was not examined but Pw2, Pw4 and Pw5 stated that Pw4 was recovered from the possession of accused from ISBT Anand Vihar, so non-examination of the constable in the instant case is not fatal to the prosecution case.
23. From the testimony of prosecution witnesses and the material placed on record and in the light of above discussions no doubt is left in my mind that it was accused Veenu who with the help of the accused Ulfat Singh and Bal Kishan kidnapped the child from the lawful custody of his father i.e Pw2 with dishonest intention. Accused Veenu also secretly kept the child for two days. I therefore hold all the accused guilty and convict accused Ulfat Singh and Bal Kishan of offence punishable U/s 363 IPC. Accused Veenu is convicted of the offence punishable U/s 363/368 IPC.
Announced in open Court on this 22nd day of February, 2007.
(SANJIV JAIN) Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Karkardooma, Shahdara, Delhi.
FIR NO. 26/2001; P.S. ANAND VIHAR 9IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJIV JAIN : ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : KARKARDOOMA COURTS :
SHAHDARA STATE VS. ULFAT SINGH Etc FIR NO. 26/2001 P.S. ANAND VIHAR U/S 363/368/34 IPC ORDER ON SENTENCE Vide separate judgment all the accused have been convicted of offence punishable U/s 363 IPC. In addition accused Veenu has been convicted of the offence punishable U/s 368 IPC.
Heard the counsel for convicts on point of sentence and perused the records. The incident pertain to the year 2001. All the convicts have remained in custody in the case for more than one year. Except this case they are not involved in any other case.
Accused Veenu is aged about 23 years, unmarried and does labour job. Accused Ulfat Singh is aged about 32 years, married and has two minor children, he also earns his livelihood by doing labour job. Accused Bal Kishan is aged about 28 years, married and has one child. He runs peanuts rehri. Before this incident convict Veenu used to work at the house of the complainant.
Purpose of punishment is to reform and rehabilitate the offender. The person learns after committing mistake. In the instant case after the alleged incident which happened in the year 2001 the accused did not commit any other offence, thus learnt a lesson for doing the wrong. They are young persons and need to be rehabilitated in their life.
Considering all these facts in the given circumstances I sentence accused Veenu to go rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for offence punishable FIR NO. 26/2001; P.S. ANAND VIHAR 10 U/s 363 IPC and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- in default of payment of fine amount he is sentenced to go simple imprisonment for a period of three months. He is also sentenced to go rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for offence punishable U/s 368 IPC and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine amount he is sentenced to go simple imprisonment for a period of one months. Both the sentences shall run concurrently.
Accused Ulfat Singh is sentenced to go rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for offence punishable U/s 363 IPC and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- in default of payment of fine amount, he is sentenced to go simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
Accused Bal Kishan is sentenced to go rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for offence punishable U/s 363 IPC and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- in default of payment of fine amount he is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
All the sentences shall run concurrently. They are given benefit of section 428 CrPC.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Court on this 27th day of February, 2007. (SANJIV JAIN) Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Karkardooma, Shahdara, Delhi.