Delhi District Court
State vs . Shiv Sagar on 26 August, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIPIN KHARB
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04 : SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT
DWARKA COURTS : NEW DELHI
SC No. 440501/2016
CNR No. DLSW01-001039-2015
State Vs. Shiv Sagar
FIR No. : 54/12
Police Station : Bindapur
Under Sections : 364A/34 IPC
Date of committal to Sessions Court : 29.04.2015
Date on which judgment was reserved : 26.08.2023
Date on which Judgment pronounced : 26.08.2023
JUDGMENT
1. Stating briefly, as per prosecution story, on 02.03.2012 SI Shashank alongwith Constable Rahul on receipt of DD No. 4A, the contents of which are to the effect that from near Pillar No. 722, Matiala Village a person has been kidnapped in a Honda city car bearing no. DL-4CAH-8519. ASI Ram Chander in PCR had followed that Honda City car and after reaching Sector 12, the said car disappeared but later on transpired that the said car bearing no. DL-4CAH-8519 has been found near DPS Public School, Dwarka, thereafter, IO went there and found complainant Deepak Singhal and recorded his statement.
2. Complainant in his statement stated that he is running a factory of manufacturing boXes at Khasra no. 61 Matiala Village near Tops Achar FIR No. 54/12 State Vs Shiv Sagar Page 1 of 28 factory. On 01.3.2012 at about 10:30 p.m he was coming from the factory to his house in Honda City white colour car no. DL-4CAH−8519 when he reached near Fish market, one Sagar, who had earlier worked with him alongwith another unknown person, asked for lift from him up to main Najafgarh road and he gave lift to t hem . After crossing the fish market, Sagar asked to stop the car where Raj Kumar and Majid were standing and they also sat in the car as they were also going to the Main Najafgarh Road. Thereafter the unknown person, who accompanied Sagar, pointed pistol on his head and Sagar put knife on his back and threatened him that if he moved then he will be killed. Accused Sagar instructed the complainant to move towards Bahadurgarh. He followed the instructions of accused Sagar and drove his vehicle accordingly. In the meantime, accused Sagar took his mobile phone No. 9818150580 and made a call to his father Sh. Suresh Kumar on his mobile phone No. 9810592708 and demanded Rs.15 lacs and said otherwise they will kill him. The accused persons further instructed his father to reach at Vardhman Market, opposite DPS alongwith money at 1:00 a.m and accordingly, at about 1:00 a.m, his father reached the Vardhman Market with Rs.8 lacs and all the accused after taking Rs.8 lacs from his father fled away. Accused Sagar also took away his mobile phone no. 981850580, his purse containing Rs.7 to 8,000/− and RC of Honda City Car as well as his licence. On the basis of his statement, the FIR was registered under Section 364A/34 IPC.
3. Statement of witnesses were recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Witness Ashish gave his statement to the effect that after getting information of kidnapping for ransom of his cousin Deepak Singhal, he came to Dwarka FIR No. 54/12 State Vs Shiv Sagar Page 2 of 28 Mor for searching his cousin and saw Honda City Car crossing from there. He informed PCR officials and, thereafter, he and PCR officials chased the said Honda City car but the said car disappeared near sector−12, Dwarka, New Delhi. Witness Suresh Kumar also gave his statement stating that kidnapper demanded Rs.25 lacs by making call from mobile of his son Deepak. Thereafter, ransom amount was settled at Rs.8 lacs. Kidnapper has instructed him to bring the said amount at Vardhman Market near DPS, Dwarka and accordingly, he went there with money. Kidnapper released his son / complainant Deepak after taking the money. The complainant Deepak had also handed over cloth stained with the blood of accused Sagar, as hand of accused Sagar got injured, while putting knife at the neck of complainant Deepak.
4. On 04.03.2012 accused Raj Kumar was apprehended on the basis of secret information from near East Metro Station, Uttam Nagar bus terminal. He was arrested and his personal search was conducted. He got recovered amount of Rs.1,12,500/− lying in an old fridge at his house bearing no. B 34, Vikas Kunj, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar. Mobile phone of accused Raj Kumar having two S I M bearing no. 9871534409 of Airtel and 9582879318 of vodaphone were also seized. Thereafter, on 05.03.2012 secret information was received that accused Mohd. Majid would come to Dwarka Mor Metro Station. He was arrested from there and accused Majid also made disclosure statement and from his personal search, an amount of Rs.1.4 lacs was recovered from the bag he was carrying. An amount of Rs.2,97,500/− was seized by the police alongwith other articles left by accused Yusuf. The proceedings u/s 82 Cr.PC was conducted against FIR No. 54/12 State Vs Shiv Sagar Page 3 of 28 accused Yusuf and Sagar and they were declared PO. After completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons namely Raj Kumar and Mohd. Majid for offence u/s 364 A/34 IPC.
5. During the trial both accused Raj Kumar and Mohd. Majid were convicted by the Ld. Sessions Court for the offence punishable u/s. 364A/34 IPC. Against the order of conviction and order on sentence both the accused persons preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and vide detailed order dated 16.10.2014, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi upheld the judgment of conviction and order on sentence qua accused Majid but acquitted the accused Raj Kumar for the offence u/s. 364A/34 IPC.
6. Later on PO Shiv Sagar was arrested on receiving secret information by Special Staff West District Delhi and after conducting further investigation from him supplementary charge-sheet qua accused Sagar was filed in the court.
7. After supplying copy to the accused Shiv Sagar, as per law, case was committed to the court of sessions.
8. After due deliberation, charge under Section 364A/34 IPC was framed against the accused Shiv Sagar to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
FIR No. 54/12 State Vs Shiv Sagar Page 4 of 289. To substantiate this case, prosecution had eXamined 14 witnesses, who have supported the case of the prosecution on the basis of which FIR was lodged.
10. PW-1 Ct. Sunder Lal deposed that on 21.01.2015 he along-with ASI Ishwar Singh were in office, a secret informer informed him regarding arrival of accused Shiv Sagar. A leading party was constituted consisting of ASI Ishwar Singh, HC Mohan Lal, HC Sunil, HC Shashi Kant, HC Bhuvnesh, Ct. Vijay, Ct. Manish, himself and secret informer was joined. At about 6:30 a.m. at Dwarka Mor, Uttam Nagar, Delhi ASI Ishwar Singh requested some passersby to become independent witness but none agreed. At about 7:15 a.m., the secret informer pointed out towards a person as accused Shiv Sagar @ Sagar. They apprehended the accused and prepared a kalandara u/s. 41.1 Cr.PC. Accused was arrested vide memo Ex.PW-1/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW-1/B. Disclosure statement of accused was recorded separately vide memo Ex.PW-1/C.
11. PW-2 Ct. Kabul Singh deposed that on 22.01.2015, he had joined the investigation with SI Mukesh Kumar. They went to PS Dwarka Sec.9 and took out accused Shiv Sagar @ Sagar from lockup. Accused led them to Machhi Market, Phase-I, Dwarka and disclosed that his another associate Mohd. Mazid and Raj Kumar boarded the car of the complainant at that place. SI Mukesh Kumar prepared pointing out memo Ex.PW-2/A. Thereafter, accused led them near DPS School, Dwarka, Opp. Vardhman Market and Mother Dairy Booth and disclosed that Yusuf had received FIR No. 54/12 State Vs Shiv Sagar Page 5 of 28 ransom amount of Rs.8 lacs there. SI Mukesh prepared pointing out memo Ex.PW-2/B, site plan Ex.PW-2/C and Ex.PW-2/D.
12. PW-3 Sh. Deepak Singhal is complainant in this case whose testimony will be discussed in later part of the judgment.
13. PW-4 ASI Ishwar Singh deposed that he prepared the kalandara u/s. 41.1 Cr.PC dated 21.01.2015 Ex.PW-4/A. He proved the DD No.2 dated 21.01.2015 of Special Staff West as Ex.PW-4/B. Information about arrest of accused was given to his wife Smt. Sadhna. Separate DD No.5 dated 21.01.2015 of Special Staff West is Ex.PW-4/C. Declaration reward against the accused is also on record which is Ex.PW-4/D wherein name of accused is mentioned at Sr. No.68.
14. PW-5 Ct. Ravinder Kumar deposed that on 21.01.2015 he along-with IO SI Mukesh Kumra came at Dwarka Court as accused Shiv Sagar was being produced by Special Staff of West District before the Ld. MM. IO moved application for interrogation before the court which was allowed. After interrogation, accused was formally arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW-5/A and his disclosure statement Ex.PW-5/B was recorded. Thereafter, accused was produced before the concerned court and was taken on police remand for two days. On the same day, accused led them to J.J. colony, Sec.3, Matiala in search of accused Yusuf who could not be traced on that day. On the same day, accused was got medically examined at DDU hospital and was brought to PS Sec.9, Dwarka and lodged into the lockup.
FIR No. 54/12 State Vs Shiv Sagar Page 6 of 2815. PW-6 Retd. SI Shamsher Singh deposed that on 02.03.2012 he was posted as duty officer at PS Binda Pur and at about 1:25 a.m he received an information that a person has been kidnapped in a Honda City car and ASI, Ram Chander of PCR has chased the car and he recorded the said information in DD No.4A, which is already exhibited by him while deposing previously in main charge-sheet as EX.PW3/A. Thereafter, in the night he had received rukka from Constable Rahul sent by SI Shashank and he lodged FIR EX.PW6/A and made endorsement on the rukka, which is already exhibited by him while deposing previously in main charge-sheet as EX.PW3/C.
16. PW-7 Sh. Chander Shekhar has proved the customer application form alongwith ID proof of mobile phone no. 9871534409, 9818150580 and 9810592708, which is already exhibited by him while deposing previously in main charge-sheet as EX.PW4/B, EX.PW4/D, EX.PW4/F respectively. He also proved call detailed of the said three phone numbers w.e.f 25.2.2012 to 03.03.2012, which is already exhibited by him while deposing previously in main charge-sheet as E X.PW4/A, EX.PW4/C and EX.PW4/E respectively and further proved the certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act in the respect of above said mobile phone, which is already exhibited by him while deposing previously in main charge-sheet as EX.PW4/G.
17. PW-8 Sh. Suresh Kumar Singhal is the father of the complainant FIR No. 54/12 State Vs Shiv Sagar Page 7 of 28 whose testimony will be discussed in later part of the judgment.
18. PW-9 is Sh. Ashish Singhal is the cousin of the complainant whose testimony will be discussed in later part of the judgment.
19. PW-10 Sh. M. N Vijayan is Nodal Officer who proved the customer application form alongwith ID proof in respect of mobile nos. 9210003216, 9211991334 and 9212826413 owned by Sadhna Singh w/o Sh. Shiv Sagar Singh, Mohd. Shahid s/o Sh. Mohd. Islam and Sadhna Singh w/o Sh. Shiv Sagar Singh respectively. He also proved call details of the said three phone numbers w.e.f 25.2.2012 to 03.03.2012 as EX.PW-10/C, Ex.PW-10/E and EX.PW-10/G respectively and further proved the certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act in the respect of above said mobile phone, which is already exhibited by him while deposing previously in main charge-sheet EX.PW6/G. He further proved the cell ID chart of location as EX.PW-10/H.
20. PW-11 HC Sunil deposed that on 21.01.2015 he was posted in Special Staff, West District. Secret informer informed him that accused Shiv Sagar who is wanted in case FIR No. 54/12 PS Bindapur can be got apprehended by him. He told the information to ASI Ishwar Singh who told Inspector Special Staff and raiding party was prepared. He was part of the raiding party.
21. PW-12 SI Mukesh Kumar proved the DD No.21B as Ex.PW-12/A regarding arrest of accused Shiv Sagar.
FIR No. 54/12 State Vs Shiv Sagar Page 8 of 2822. PW-13 is SI Shashank was the first IO of the case who deposed that on the intervening night of 01/02.03.12, he went to metro pillar No. 722 alongwith Const. Rahul after receiving DD No.4A where complainant PW−1 Deepak met him in Honda City car bearing No. DL-4CAH-851 and recorded the statement of complainant as EX.PW1/A and prepared rukka on the said statement EX. PW16/A and got the FIR lodged after sending Const. Rahul to PS and, thereafter, he alongwith complainant came to his factory and made enquiries and returned to PS and, thereafter, he handed over the investigation to IO / SI Jitender Kumar. He also seized one blood stained shirt of complainant from his factory.
23. PW−14 is SI Jitender Kumar was the main IO of the case, who deposed that investigation of this case was assigned to him. He alongwith Const. Rahul went to the spot i.e opposite Vardhman Plaza and DPS, Dwarka Sector−3 where complainant Deepak/PW−1, PW−2 Suresh Kumar and PW−5 Aashish, cousin of PW−1 and SI, Shashank met him. SI Shashank informed him about the facts of this case. He alongwith his relatives as well as police officials went to the factory of the complainant and prepared site plan at the instance of the complainant vide EX. PW19/A. He has also seized the blood stained shirt of the complainant vide seizure memo EX. PW1/B and identified it in court as Ex.PY. He also recorded supplementary statement of the complainant and supplementary statement of the witnesses and tried to trace the accused person but they were not found. On 04.03.2012, he alongwith Constable Jai Bhagwan and Const. Amrik arrested the accused Raj Kumar. On 05.03.2012, information was FIR No. 54/12 State Vs Shiv Sagar Page 9 of 28 received that co-accused Mohd. Majid had been arrested from Dwarka Mor station. He went to the spot and found HC Rohtash, HC Harphool and Ct. Amarjeet alongwith accused Majid. Thereafter, he prepared the site plan Ex.PW-19/B at the instance of both the accused persons, near Machhi Market, Sector−3, Dwarka where the accused persons had boarded the car and at the instance of accused Mohd. Majid prepared site plan Ex.PW-19/C of the place from where accused Yusuf had collected the ransom amount. During the course of said investigation, he collected the CDR and CAF and filed charge-sheet. Accused Sagar and Yusuf could not be arrested.
During his cross-examination, he denied all the suggestions given by counsel for the accused.
24. On 14.01.2020 prosecution evidence was closed as all relevant witnesses were examined and matter was fixed for recording statement of accused.
25. On 03.08.2022 statement of accused u/s. 313 Cr.PC has been recorded in which he stated that he was an employee in factory owned by the father of Deepak Singla and there was some financial dispute between him and father of complainant due to which he has been falsely implicated by them in this case and he is innocent and has done nothing wrong and he is falsely arrested in the present case and submitted that he does not want to lead any defence evidence and matter was fixed for final arguments.
26. I have heard counsels for the parties and with their assistance gone FIR No. 54/12 State Vs Shiv Sagar Page 10 of 28 through the record.
27. It has been contended by the State counsel that accused had kidnapped PW−3 / Deepak Singhal on the prete Xt of taking lift from him in his Honda City car and, thereafter, demanded ransom amount for releasing PW−3 Deepak, from his father PW-8 Suresh Kumar. Accused kept on roaming here and there. In the meantime, Honda City car in which PW−3 was kidnapped by the accused persons was seen running on the road and PW−9 Aashish, who is cousin of PW−3 Deepak/complainant, followed the car and also requested PCR van which was standing at Dwarka Mor. PCR van alongwith PW−9 Aashish followed the Honda City car in which PW−3 was kidnapped but could not catch hold of the accused persons and in the meantime, accused Raj Kumar deboarded from the Honda City car near pillar No. 750 and other co−accused deboarded the car from the spot of incident and after collecting ransom amount from PW−8 Suresh Kumar i.e. father of PW-3 fled away. Therefore, in view of the impeccable testimony of PW−3, PW−5 and PW-8 which is supported by police witnesses as well as recovery amount got recovered at the instance of co- accused persons (already convicted) as well as mobile phone connectivity of victim and his family, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts and accused deserve to be convicted.
28. Per contra, Ld. Defence counsel has contended that accused persons had been falsely implicated in the present case as the complainant/PW−3 had to pay the amount which was due to accused Raj Kumar. Otherwise, the prosecution case is full of material contradictions and discrepancies with FIR No. 54/12 State Vs Shiv Sagar Page 11 of 28 regard to the manner of kidnapping, place of occurrence, sequence of events, call for ransom made by accused and his father for negotiation of ransom amount as well as for chasing of Honda City car by PCR van etc which the prosecution has failed to eXplain. Even the conduct of the accused persons is also not natural as per prosecution story because if the victim is known to the accused persons, they would have never spared him after getting ransom amount as identity of the accused persons was disclosed to the victim. Therefore, the prosecution case is bundle of lies and accused deserve to be acquitted.
29. At the very outset, it may be noted here that victim and his father PW−3 and PW−8 respectively have used the following phone numbers during the relevant period namely:
Mobile no. User Ownership 9818150580 (herein after Deepak Singhal Deepak Singhal referred as A) 9810592708 (herein after Suresh Singhal Suresh Singhal referred as B)
And the inter se connectivity of these mobile phones is reproduced hereunder:
(I) Call details of mobile No.9818150580 of PW−3 Deepak Singhal Calling no. Called no. Date Time dur(s) 9810592708 9818150580 01.02.2012 10:26:22 PM 22 (B) (A) FIR No. 54/12 State Vs Shiv Sagar Page 12 of 28 9818150580 9810592708 01.02.2012 10:27:19 PM 44 (A) (B) 9818150580 9810592708 01.02.2012 10:28:28 PM 50 (A) (B) 9818150580 9810592708 01.02.2012 11:59:10 PM 101 (A) (B) 9818150580 9810592708 01.02.2012 12:21:26 AM 156 (A) (B) 9818150580 9810592708 02.02.2012 12:52:33 71 (A) (B) 9818150580 9810592708 02.02.2012 01:19:36 AM 25 (A) (B) 9818150580 9810592708 02.02.2012 01:20:44 AM 92 (A) (B) 9818150580 9810592708 02.02.2012 01:22:42 Am 0 (A) (B) 9818150580 9810592708 02.02.2012 01:22:52 AM 0 (A) (B) 9818150580 9810592708 02.02.2012 01:23:31AM 0 (A) (B) (II) Call details of mobile No.9810592708 PW−8 Suresh Singhal Calling no. Called no. Date Time dur(s) 9810592708 9818150580 01.02.2012 10:26:22 PM 22 (B) (A) 9818150580 9810592708 01.02.2012 10:27:19 PM 44 (A) (B) 9818150580 9810592708 01.02.2012 10:28:28 PM 50 (A) (B) 9810592708 9810201655 01.02.2012 10:30:02 PM 94 (B) FIR No. 54/12 State Vs Shiv Sagar Page 13 of 28 9810592708 9810043513 01.02.2012 10:34:23 PM 148 (B) 9818150580 9810592708 01.02.2012 11:37:02PM 183 (A) (B) 9818150580 9810592708 01.02.2012 11:06:01 PM 218 (A) (B) 9810592708 9810050425 01.02.2012 11:27:09 PM 8 (B) 9818150580 9810592708 01.02.2012 11:59:05 Am 101 (A) (B) 9810050425 9810592708 02.02.2012 12:08:58 AM 46 (B) 9818150580 9810592708 02.02.2012 12:21:31AM 156 (A) (B) 9818150580 9810592708 02.02.2012 12:52:33 AM 17 (A) (B) 9818150580 9810592708 02.02.2012 01:19:41 AM 26 (A) (B) 9818150580 9810592708 02.02.2012 01:20:44 AM 92 (A) (B) 9818150580 9810592708 02.02.2012 01:22:45AM 0 (A) (B) 9818150580 9810592708 02.02.2012 01:22:55 AM 0 (A) (B) 9818150580 9810592708 02.02.2012 01:23:33 AM 0 (A) (B) 9891742500 9810592708 02.02.2012 01:34:19 AM 13 (B) 9810592708 9810050425 02.02.2012 01:35:29 AM 37 9810050425 9810592708 02.02.2012 01:38:17 AM 19 (B) 9810592708 9560707683 02.02.2012 01:59:40AM 17 (B) FIR No. 54/12 State Vs Shiv Sagar Page 14 of 28 9810592708 9560707683 02.02.2012 02:00:34AM 44
30. As per allegations, the accused person Sagar alongwith co-accused Yusuf, Raj Kumar and Mohd. Majid had kidnapped PW−3 Deepak/complainant at about 10:30 pm on 01.03.2012 on the preteXt of seeking lift from him. First of all, accused Sagar and one unknown accused (Yusuf) sought lift. Thereafter, accused Raj Kumar and Mohd. Majid also asked for lift at some distance and after boarding the car, accused persons kidnapped the victim PW−3 Deepak on gun point as well as on knife point. The father of the complainant/PW−8 Suresh Kumar called his son as to where he is and PW−3 Deepak/complainant told his father that he has been kidnapped by some persons. Accused persons demanded ransom for releasing PW−3 and ransom amount was settled at Rs. 8 lacs. In the meantime, accused kept on roaming here and there and in the meanwhile they were seen by PW−9 Aashish and he sought help from PCR van in chasing the Honda City car in which accused were roaming. The car could not be apprehended but after sometime, accused collected ransom amount and let off PW−3 Deepak.
31. Now to appreciate the case of the prosecution, court would like to advert to the testimony of PW−3 Deepak, PW−8 Suresh Kumar and PW−9 Aashish.
32. PW−3 has stated that on 01.03.2012 at about 10:00 pm, he was coming from his factory at Matiyala Village by Honda City car of white FIR No. 54/12 State Vs Shiv Sagar Page 15 of 28 colour and after covering some distance, accused Sagar, who was his former employee, alongwith other co−accused had asked for a lift. He allowed them to sit in the car. Thereafter, after covering some distance near fish market, accused Raj Kumar and Mohd. Majid, who were earlier his employees sought lift. After reaching near Najafgarh Road, accused Sagar put a knife on his back and unknown person (Yusuf ) put pistol on him and directed him to drive. He kept on driving as per the directions of the accused persons. Thereafter, accused Sagar called his father i.e. PW-8/ Suresh Kumar from mobile phone of PW−3 and demanded Rs. 15 lacs as ransom. PW−8 Suresh Kumar told that he could not arrange Rs. 15 lacs, so, accused persons agreed for ransom amount of Rs. 8 lacs which was to be delivered at Vardhman market at about 1:00 am on the intervening night of 01/02.03.2012. Father of PW−3 came with said amount. After reaching Vardhman market, accused persons also got down from the Honda City car and snatched the bag from the hand of his father and ran towards Dwarka on foot. The accused had also took his mobile, wallet and cash amount of Rs. 7−8,000/−. His brother informed the police. Police met him after 15 minutes of fleeing away of the accused persons. Police recorded his statement EX.PW3/A. He also told that when accused Sagar put knife at his back, accused Sagar injured his own hand and got complainant's shirt stained with blood, which was seized by police vide seizure memo Ex.PW- 3/B, site plan was prepared at his instance Ex.PW-3/C. He correctly identified the accused Shiv Sagar in the court and also identified the blood stained shirt of violet colour as Ex.PY.
33. In his cross-examination by Ld. counsel for the accused, he stated that FIR No. 54/12 State Vs Shiv Sagar Page 16 of 28 accused worked with him for 8 - 10 months through contractor Raj Kumar. There used to be 8-10 workers through the thekedar Raj Kumar. There used to be regular communication / conversation between him and accused Shiv Sagar. Accused Shiv Sagar and Yusuf were standing in front of a factory on Matiala Achar Factory Road. There was nothing in their hands. Accused Yusuf sat on the rear seat behind the driver seat in his car. Both Raj Kumar and Mazid were standing together at Machhi Market. Mazid was also employed in his factory. He cannot tell the size or other details of the knife, however, it was a very huge one. It was a straight Chhura not folded one. Accused Shiv Sagar had taken out the Chhura firstly and immediately thereafter at the same moment Yusuf had also took out a pistol and put it on his back. Accused Shiv Sagar had pointed out the knife on stomach. Accused Shiv Sagar had sustained injury on his right hand while he was putting the knife on his stomach. He denied all the suggestion given to him by counsel for the accused.
34. PW−8/Suresh Kumar, who is father of PW−3 Deepak, stated that he and his son Deepak look after the work of factory and they employed labour on contract and Shiv Sagar used to work in their factory. On 01.03.2012 at about 9:00 p.m, he went to his house from his factory as his son was in the factory. As his son did not return home by 10:00 p.m., so he called on his son's mobile no. 9818150580 but same was switched off and at around 10:15 p.m. to 10:30 pm, mobile phone of his son Deepak got connected and his son asked him to save him otherwise they will kill him and after that phone got disconnected. He again tried to call his son but some other person picked up and told him that they want Rs.25 lacs and again phone got FIR No. 54/12 State Vs Shiv Sagar Page 17 of 28 switched off. He called his relatives, who came to his home within half an hour. He again made call on his son's mobile number and then unknown person told him to arrange Rs.25 lacs but he bargained and the ransom amount was settled for Rs.8 lacs and that person told him to bring the amount at Vardhman Plaza, Sec.3, Dwarka and further instructed him not to call police, otherwise, his son would be killed. Considering the safety of his son, he did not call the police. He reached near Vardhman Market and waited for 30-40 minutes and after that called on his son's mobile and unknown persons told him that they are just coming. He reached there on foot and unknown person with muffled face came at Mother Dairy Booth near Vardhman Market and he gave bag to him and he went away. After 30 minutes his son and nephew Ashok came and many police personnel also came there.
He was not cross-examined by counsel for the accused.
35. PW−9 Aashish, cousin of PW−3 Deepak/complainant, stated that on 01.03.2012 after 10:00 p.m. he received a call from his uncle PW- 8/Suresh Kumar who informed him that PW−3 has been kidnapped for ransom. He went to their home and his uncle told him that the abductors have settled for ransom amount of Rs. 8 lacs and it was to be delivered at Vardhman Plaza, Sec.3, Dwarka. His uncle PW−8 went alone with amount. He parked his car near Dwarka Mor Metro Station. After sometime, he spotted Honda City white colour car of PW−3 Deepak/complainant which crossed Dwarka Mor. He informed the PCR van parked nearby that his brother has been kidnapped in said Honda City car. PCR officials conveyed the message through FIR No. 54/12 State Vs Shiv Sagar Page 18 of 28 wireless and he alongwith the police officials followed that Honda City car upto Sector−12 after that said Honda City Car disappeared. After five minutes, a message has been flashed that said Honda City Car was seen at Vardhman Market. He alongwith PCR officials went there. PW−3 Deepak/complainant was found there and after some time his uncle PW-8 / Suresh also came there.
He was not cross-examined by counsel for the accused.
36. The contention of the defence counsel is that the independent witnesses who had seen the victim PW−3 being kidnapped by accused persons had not been e X amined and Ld. Counsel for the State has contended that there is no need to cite each and every persons as a witness, as victim PW−3 Deepak has given a graphic description of the events on the day of his kidnapping. Court finds no force in this contention of the counsel for the defence as PW−3 has stated in his cross that Pankaj, foreman of his company and one Subodh, security guard of another company had seen the accused persons while sitting in his car, but PW−3 has further clarified that in his complaint he had not told the names of these two persons as later on, these two persons told him that they saw the accused persons getting in his car; meaning thereby the statement of PW−1 was recorded prior to supplying of the said information by Pankaj and Subodh to PW−1. Otherwise also, non e X amination of these two persons is insignificant in view of the testimony of victim PW−1. Therefore, non e X amination of Subodh and Pankaj by the prosecution is not going to cause any dent in the prosecution story. Prosecution is not required to examine each and FIR No. 54/12 State Vs Shiv Sagar Page 19 of 28 every witness during the sequence of events, if it has sufficient witnesses to prove its case and it cannot be expected to meet every hypothesis put by the defence.
37. Ne X t contention of the counsel for the defence is that there is a contradiction with regard to the amount of ransom demanded by the accused persons but state counsel has contended that there is no such contradiction in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. Court is also of the opinion that said contention as alleged by the defence counsel is devoid of merits as PW−3 Deepak has stated that accused had demanded Rs. 15 lacs as ransom amount and ultimately settled at Rs. 8 lacs and PW−8 Suresh Kumar, who is father of PW−3 Deepak, stated that accused had demanded amount of Rs. 25 lacs and ultimately settled at Rs. 8 lacs. PW−9 Aashish has also stated that bargained amount was settled at Rs. 8 lacs. The alleged contradiction in the testimony of PW−3 Deepak, PW−8 Suresh Kumar and PW−9 Aashish is neither here and nor there as PW−3 Deepak stated the ransom amount as Rs. 15 lacs and ultimately settled at Rs.8 lacs and PW−8 stated the amount of ransom demanded by accused was Rs. 25 lacs and said demand was reduced to Rs. 8 lacs. Similarly, PW−9 Aashish has also stated that the amount of ransom demanded was Rs.8 lacs. So, there is no contradiction so far as demand of ransom amount is concerned and even if for the sake of arguments, it is presumed that if there is any such contradiction, such contradiction is neither material nor vital so as to effect the prosecution case and at the most, these are minor discrepancies which are bound to occur in FIR No. 54/12 State Vs Shiv Sagar Page 20 of 28 the testimony of truthful witnesses.
38. Another contention raised by defence counsel was that there is contradiction as PW−3 Deepak has stated that accused called his father PW−8 Suresh Kumar and demanded ransom amount, whereas PW−8 / father of PW-3 has stated that he called his son PW−3 Deepak. Court found no substance in the said contention as PW−8 Suresh Kumar has stated that he called his son at about 10:20 pm from his phone and PW−3 Deepak has stated that accused Sagar demanded ransom amount from his phone. As PW-3 Deepak was driving under threat & pressure and accused Sagar was having his phone, therefore, there are chances that PW-3 might not know exactly whether accused Sagar dialed the number from his mobile or received the call on his mobile. The documentary evidence in the shape of call details of both the mobile numbers belonging to PW−3 Deepak and PW−8 Suresh Kumar respectively, shows that the first call was made from the mobile phone No. 9810592708 of PW−8 Suresh Kumar to the mobile phone No. 9818150580 of PW−3 Deepak as per the details depicted in para No. 29. Further, the documentary evidence i.e. CDR record of both PW-3 and PW-8 shows that there were numbers of calls between them at odd hours which usually do not happen between a father and son, it itself points towards the fact that something unusual was happening. There are so many calls between both the phones in the dead of the night which corroborates the testimony of these witnesses and is also bound to raise an accusing figure against the accused persons.
FIR No. 54/12 State Vs Shiv Sagar Page 21 of 2839. Sh. Chander Shekhar, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd., PW-7 appeared in the witness box and exhibited the call detail records of mobile No.9818150580 and the Customer Application Form along with the ID proof Ex.PW-4/C and Ex.PW-4/D which was in the name of Deepak Singhal son of Shri Suresh Singhal. He also exhibited the call detail record of mobile No.9810592708 along with Customer Application Form and the ID proof as Ex.PW-4/E and Ex.PW-4/F which was in the name of Suresh Kumar Singhal son of Shri Jot Ram. He exhibited the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act relating to these call records as Ex.PW-4/G. A perusal of the call records of Deepak Singhal and Suresh Singhal would corroborate their version that at 22.26 hours Suresh was present in the Cell ID Tower of Gulab Bagh, Uttam Nagar whereas Deepak was in Jharoda Kalan which position continued till 22.30 hours. At 23.59 hours Deepak's mobile phone was at village Kanjhawala and that of Suresh at Gulab Bagh, Uttam Nagar. At 00.21 hours Deepak's mobile was at Pooth Khurd and that of Suresh at Gulab Bagh, Uttam Nagar. From 00.52 hours to 1.35 hours mobile phone of Suresh was at Vardhman Market, Sector-23, Dwarka. Deepak's mobile at 00.52 hours was at Raj Park, Sultan Puri Road, at 01.19 hours at MRV Public School, Sector-3 and from 1.20 hours to 1.23 hours at Vardhman Market, Sector-3, Dwarka whereafter there were no calls from this number.
40. PW-8 was mostly present in the Cell ID Tower of Gulabi Bagh, Uttam Nagar whereas location of Deepak was in different places, which were changing frequently and it corroborates the case of the FIR No. 54/12 State Vs Shiv Sagar Page 22 of 28 prosecution. Whether PW-3 first called PW-8 or PW-8 first called PW-3 is a minor discrepancy which does not create any doubt on the story of the prosecution in view of the documentary evidence i.e. Ex. PW-4/A to Ex.PW-4/F i.e. CAF and CDR of PW-3 and PW-8 mobile phones and Ex.PW-10/H i.e. Cell ID Chart of location.
41. So far as, contention of the defence counsel that the conduct of the victim and his father is wholly unnatural as they had not informed the police and police swung into action on the basis of mobile calls made by some person; but neither the ownership of said mobile number nor the person who had made the call from that has been identified and cited as a witness is concerned. It is relevant to observe here that this contention is also devoid of merits and is hereby rejected as the non supplying of information of kidnapping of his son by PW−8 is not unnatural because he was more interested in getting his son released from the clutches of accused persons but PW−9, who is cousin of kidnapped person i.e. PW-3 Deepak, could not held himself back in seeking the help of PCR when he saw the PW-3's Honda City car and he along-with PCR followed that car which disappeared after approaching sector 12, Dwarka. The testimony of PW-9 is further corroborated by Ex.PW-3/A i.e. DD No.4A which contains the message conveyed by PCR that they followed the Honda City Car which later on disappeared. Further, PW-9 was not cross- examined by the accused, so, testimony of PW-9 goes unrebutted. So non supplying of information to the police regarding alleged kidnapping by PW−8 is not going to effect the prosecution case, FIR No. 54/12 State Vs Shiv Sagar Page 23 of 28 otherwise, it makes his conduct more natural.
42. The case of the prosecution rests on the testimony of Deepak Singhal, PW-3, the complainant victim himself, PW-8 Suresh Singhal his father and Ashish Singhal, PW-9 his cousin. PW-8 Suresh Kumar Singhal, father of Deepak, deposed in sync with Deepak and the version of Deepak Singhal and Suresh Singhal is corroborated by Ashish Sighal, the nephew of Suresh Singhal. From the version of Deepak, Suresh and Ashish the factum of kidnapping of Deepak and demand of ransom is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
43. Ld counsel for accused also raised fingers at the investigation. The contention that PW−13 SI Shashank stated that he prepared rukka at metro pillar No. 722 is immaterial as PW−3 Deepak, PW−8 Suresh Kumar and PW−9 Aashish had stated that IO recorded the statement of PW−3 Deepak at Vardhman Plaza. Similarly, the contention that the statement E X .PW3/A was recorded in the police station is immaterial as other PWs had stated that statement of PW−3 was recorded at the spot near Vardhman Plaza and this fact is also fortified by the documents as the rukka was sent about 3:10 am from the spot and till that time, no police official or public witness has either come to pillar No. 722 or to police station, so this contention is also devoid of force and is hereby rejected.
44. Ne X t contention of defence counsel is that IO had not prepared the site plan and the site plan which prepared is defective due to lack FIR No. 54/12 State Vs Shiv Sagar Page 24 of 28 of details regarding the place where vehicles were parked by the complainant party and the manner in which the alleged amount of ransom was received by the accused persons. But these minor discrepancies as alleged in the site plan is not going to effect the prosecution case as PW−3 Deepak who is injured witness has stated in unequivocal terms that accused persons kidnapped him and after getting the ransom amount from his father, they fled away.
45. Hon'ble Ape X Court in "Tahir vs State" 1996 SCC 515 has considered the value of the evidence of police officials and has observed as follows:
"No infirmity attaches to the testimony of police officials merely because they belong to police force and there is no rule of evidence which lays down that conviction cannot be recorded on the evidence of police officials, if found reliable, unless corroborated by some independent evidence. The rule of evidence however, only requires a more careful scrutiny of their evidence, since they can be said to be interested in the result of the case projected by them. Where the evidence of the police officials after careful scrutiny inspires confidence and is found to be trustworthy and reliable, it can form the basis of a conviction and the absence of some independent witness of the locality to lend corroboration to their evidence does not in any way affect the credit worthiness of the prosecution witnesses."
46. While it is true that the police should not involve innocent persons, fabricate evidence and obtain convictions, it is equally true that cases in which substratum of the prosecution case is strong and substantiated by reliable evidence, lapses in investigation should not persuade the court to reject the prosecution case. The court with its FIR No. 54/12 State Vs Shiv Sagar Page 25 of 28 vast e X perience should be quick to notice mischief if there is any. Incompetent prosecuting agencies or prosecuting agencies which are driven by e X traneous considerations should not be allowed to take the court for a ride. The courts will have to adopt a pragmatic approach. No scope must be given to absurd and fanciful submissions. It is true that there can be no compromise on basic legal principles, but, unnecessary weightage should not be given to minor errors or lapses. If courts get carried away by every mistake or lapse of the investigating agency, the guilty will have a field day. The submissions relating to alleged discrepancies in the manner of kidnapping, place of occurrence, sequence of events, call for ransom made by accused and his father for negotiation of ransom amount as well as for chasing of Honda City car by PCR van etc, are, therefore, rejected.
47. It is obligatory on the part of the accused while being e X amined U/s 313 CrPC to furnish some e X planation with respect to the incriminating circumstances associated with him and the court must take note of such e X planation, even, in case of circumstantial evidence, in order to decide as to whether or not the chain of circumstances is complete when the attention of the accused is drawn to the circumstances that inculpate him in relation to the commission of crime and he fails to offer an appropriate e X planation with respect to the same, the said act may be considered as providing a missing link for completing the chain of circumstance. In this regard & found support from "State of Maharashtra Vs Suresh", (2000) 1 SCC 471 and "Musheer Khan VS State of M.P.", (2010) 2 SCC 748. Accused FIR No. 54/12 State Vs Shiv Sagar Page 26 of 28 Shiv Sagar led no defence evidence.
48. It may be noted here that PW−3 is injured witness and his testimony is having much evidentiary value then of an ordinary witness. Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused. The evidence of an injured witness has a greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons e X ist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly. The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions. If there be any contradiction, e X aggeration and immaterial embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, e X aggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence.
49. PW-3 / complainant Deepak pin points the role of accused Shiv Sagar and attribute specific overt acts to accused Shiv Sagar that in the first instance Shiv Sagar and one person whom he did not know took the lift, so, lift was given due to Shiv Sagar as PW-3 did not know other person. When they reached near main Najafgarh Road, Shiv Sagar put a knife on his back and the person whom he did not know put pistol on his head. Shiv Sagar spoke to his father Suresh Kumar from his mobile phone and demanded 15 lakhs or they would kill him. The ransom was to be taken at Vardhman Market, Dwarka where Suresh Singhal was called at 1.00 AM. Shiv Sagar injured his hand and spoiled complainant's shirt which was proved as FIR No. 54/12 State Vs Shiv Sagar Page 27 of 28 Ex.PY. As per Deepak after reaching Vardhman Market, three persons i.e. Sagar, Yusuf, whose name he did not know and Majid got down from the car and snatched the bag from his father and ran towards Dwarka on foot. As noted above, specific overt act is attributed to Sagar, he was one of the persons along with the other two Majid (convicted) and Yusuf (PO) who had collected the ransom amount from Suresh Singhal and PW-3 / complainant identified the accused Shiv Sagar in the court and there cannot be any dispute regarding the identification of accused Shiv Sagar by PW-3 / complainant as accused Shiv Sagar worked in his factory for 8 to 10 months and there were regular communication / conversation between them.
50. From the above discussion, I am of the opinion that prosecution has been successful in bringing home the guilt of the accused Shiv Sagar and that the accused persons had committed the offence in question and accused persons had committed an offence under section VIPIN Digitally signed 364A IPC. by VIPIN KHARB KHARB 13:22:04 +0530 Date: 2023.08.26 Announced in open Court today (Vipin Kharb) on 26.08.23 Additional Sessions Judge-04 South-West, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi FIR No. 54/12 State Vs Shiv Sagar Page 28 of 28