Delhi District Court
State vs Rajender Etc.//Fir No. 213/03 on 29 January, 2011
:1:
THE COURT OF SHRI SANJAY KUMAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - I,
DISTRICT NORTH WEST, ROOM NO. 308,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
SC No. 67/2008
FIR No. 213/2003
PS : SULTAN PURI
U/s. 364-A/307/34 IPC
STATE
VERSUS
1. RAJENDER KUMAR @ RAJU
S/O HAZARI LAL
R/O D-2/105, SECTOR-20
ROHINI, DELHI.
2. SANJEEV @ BAHUA S/O SUKHDEV RAI
R/O. D-2/110, SECTOR-20
ROHINI, DELHI.
3. RIAZUDDIN @ RIYAZ S/O SALAHUDDIN
R/O. D-2/107, SECTOR-20
ROHINI, DELHI.
Date of Institution : 03.09.2003
Date of receipt of case in this court : 24.11.2008
Arguments heard On : 24.01.2011
Judgment Announced On : 29.01.2011
Orders on Sentence announced on : 31.01.2011
SHRI P.K. VERMA, APP FOR THE STATE.
SHRI ASHOK DRALL, COUNSEL FOR ALL THE CONVICTS.
STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03
PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC.
:2:
31.01.2011
Present : Sh. P. K. Verma, APP for the State.
All three convicts in JC with their counsel Sh.
Ashok Drall.
1. It has been submitted by Sh. Ashok Drall, counsel
for convicts that convict Rajender @ Raju is aged about 27
years and is having elder and ailing parents and wife. Convict
Rajender is the sole bread winner of the family and only son
of his parents. He is not a previous convict and no other
case is pending against him as on today except the present
one. At the time of alleged offence, he had just attained the
age of majority and was of tender age. He further submits
that convict Sanjeev is aged about 26 years and his parents
have already expired. He is having one unmarried sister and
he is the only one to look after her. He is also the sole bread
winner of his family, who will be at the verge of starvation in
his absence. He is not a previous convict and no other case
is pending against him as on today except the present one.
STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03
PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC.
:3:
At the time of alleged offence, he had just attained the age of
majority and was of tender age. Counsel for Convicts has
then submitted that convict Riazuddin @ Riyaz is aged about
28 years and is having old ailing mother, one younger
brother and sister each. He is also the sole bread winner of
his family, who will be at the verge of starvation in his
absence. He is not a previous convict and no other case is
pending against him as on today except the present one.
This case does not fall in the category of rarest of the rare
cases and hence lenient view may be taken against all the
three convicts.
2. On the other hand, Sh. P.K. Verma, Ld. APP for the
State states that all the three convicts planned the incident
and shared common intention for committing heinous crime
of abduction of Master Mohit for ransom. They also made a
ransom call and sent a ransom letter demanding Rs. 4 lacs
from the father of abducted child and thereafter they
attempted to murder Master Mohit by strangulating his neck
and by hitting his head with brick but his life was saved. Ld.
STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03
PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC.
:4:
APP for state submits that in view of this gruesome serious
crime, all the three convicts may be awarded maximum
punishment for commission of offences punishable u/s 364-A/
34 IPC and 307/34 IPC.
3. Security of persons and property of the people is a
paramount function of the State which could be achieved
through machinery of criminal law. Protection of society and
stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of law
which must be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence.
The facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature
of crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed,
the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the
convicts. The nature of weapons used and all other attending
circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the
area of consideration. Undue sympathy to imposed
inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice
system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of
law and society could not long endure under such serious
STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03
PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC.
:5:
threats. It is, therefore, the duty of every court to award
proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence
and the manner in which it was executed or committed etc.
4. It was observed in case of Dhananjoy
Chatterjee @ Dhana Vs. State of West Bengal, 1995
AIR SCW 510 as under :-
"Of course, it is not possible to lay down any
cut and dry formula relating to imposition of
sentence but the object of sentencing should be
to see that the crime does not go unpunished
and the victim of crime as also the society has
the satisfaction that justice has been done to it
in imposing sentences, in the absence of
specific legislation. Judges must consider
variety of factors and after considering all
those factors and taking an overall view of the
situation impose sentence which they consider
to be an appropriate one. Aggravating factors
cannot be ignored and similarity mitigating
circumstances have also to be taken into
consideration.
In our opinion, the measure of punishment in a
given case must depend upon the atrocity of
the crime; the conduct of the criminal and the
defenceless and unprotected state of the
victim. Imposition of appropriate punishment is
the manner in which the courts respond to the
society's cry for justice against the criminals.
Justice demands that courts should impose
STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03
PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC.
:6:
punishment fitting to the crime so that the
courts reflects public abhorrence of the crime.
The courts must not only keep in view of the
rights of criminal but also the rights of the
victim of crime and the society at large while
considering imposition of appropriate
punishment."
5. It was also observed in case of Jashubha
Bharatsing Gohil Vs. State of Gujrat, (1994) 4 SCC 353
that the protectiion of the society and deterring the criminal
is avowed object of law and that is required to be achieved
by imposing appropriate sentence.
6. It was held in the case of Siddarama & others
Vs. State of Karnataka, (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 72 :-
"the object should be to protect the society and
to deter the criminal in achieving the avowed
object to law by imposing appropriate sentence.
It is expected that the courts would operate the
sentencing system so as to impose such
sentence which reflects the conscience of the
society and the sentencing process has to be
stern where it should be.
Imposition of sentencing without considering its
effect on the social order in many cases may be
in reality a futile exercise. The social impact of
the crime e.g. where it relates to offences
STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03
PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC.
:7:
relating to narcotic drugs or psychotropic
substances which have great impact not only on
the health fabric but also on the social order
and public interest, cannot be lost sight of and
per se require exemplary treatment. Any liberal
attitude by imposing meagre sentences or
taking too sympathetic view merely on account
of lapse of time or personal inconveniences in
respect of such offences will be result wise
counterproductive in the long run and against
societal interest which needs to be cared for an
strengthened by a string of deterrence inbuilt in
the sentencing system."
7. It was observed in the case of Shivaji @ Dadya
Shankar Alhat Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2008 (4) RCR
(Criminal) 202 as under :-
"Proportions between crime and punishment is
a goal respected in principles, and in spite of
errant notions, it remains a strong influence in
the determination of sentences. The practice of
punishing all serious crimes with equal severity
is now unknown in civilized societies, but such
a radical departure from the principle of
proportionality has disappeared from the law
only in recent times. Even now for a single
grave infraction drastic sentences are imposed.
Anything less than a penalty of greatest
severity for any serious crime is unwarranted
and unwise. But in fact, quite apart from those
considerations that make punishment
disproportionate punishment has some very
undesirable practical consequences."
STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03
PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC.
:8:
8. In case State of Punjab Vs. Prem Sagar and
Others (2008) 7 SCC 550 it was observed that the Indian
Judicial System has not been able to develop legal principles
as regards sentencing. It was further observed that whether
the court while awarding sentence would take recourse to
the principle of deterrence or reform or invoke the doctrine of
proportioonality would depend upon the facts and
circumstances of each case and while doing so nature of
offence said to have been committed by the accused plays
an important role. A wide discretion is conferred on the court
but said discretion must exercise judicially while sentencing
an accused. It would depend upon the circumstances in
which the crime has been committed and the mental state
and the age of the accused is also relevant. It was observed
as under :
"In our judicial system, we have not been able
to develop legal principles as regards
sentencing. The superior courts except making
observations with regard to the purport and
object for which punishment is imposed upon
an offender, have not issued any guidelines.
Other developed countried have done so.
STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03
PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC.
:9:
Whether the court while awarding sentence
would take recourse to the principle of
deterrence or reform or invoke the doctrine of
proportionality would no doubt depend upon
the facts and circumstances of each case. While
doing so, however, the nature of the offence
said to have been committed by the accused
plays an important role. The offences which
affect public health must be dealt with
severely. For the said purpose, the courts must
notice the object for enacting Article-47 of the
Constitution of India.
A sentence is a judgment on conviction of a
crime. It is resorted to after a person is
convicted of the offence. It is the ultimate goal
of any justice delivery system. Parliament,
however, in providing for a hearing a sentence,
as would appear from sub-section (2) of Section
235, sub-section (2) of Section 248, Section 325
and also Section 360 and 361 of the Code of
Criminal procedure, has laid down certain
principles. The said provisions lay down the
principle that the court in awarding the
sentence must take into consideration a large
number of relevant factors; sociological
backdrop of the accused being one of them.
Although a wide discretion has been conferred
on the court but said discretion must exercise
judicially. It would depend upon the
circumstances in which the crime has been
committed and the mental state. Age of the
accused is also relevant."
STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03
PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC.
:10:
9. The punishment provided under Section 364-A IPC
is death or life imprisonment. The principles of punishment
provided under Section 302 IPC, where punishment is also
death or life imprisonment as a penalty for murder, has to be
followed in this case also. The Indian Penal Code has under
gone multi facet changes for the last three decades which
indicates that the Parliament has taken note of contemporary
criminological thought and movement. The Indian Penal Code
reflects a definite swing towards life imprisonment. Death
sentence is ordinarily ruled out and can only be imposed for
"special reasons". As provided in Section 354 (3) CrPC. It
indicates that reformation and rehabilitation of offenders and
no deterrence, are now among the foremost objects of the
administration of criminal justice in the country. Section
354(3) CrPC. is a part emerging picture of acceptance by the
legislature of the new trends in criminology. The personality
of an offender revealed by his age, characte4r, antecedents
and other circumstances and the tractability of the offender
to reform must necessarily play the most prominent role in
determining the sentence to be awarded. A judge has to
STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03
PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC.
:11:
balance the personality of the offender with the
circumstances, situations and the reactions and choose the
appropriate sentence to be imposed. The former rule that the
normal punishment for murder is death is no longer operative
and it is now within the discretion of the court to pass either
the sentence prescribed in Section 302 IPC.
10. In case Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR
1980 SC 899 it was observed that a real and abiding
concern for the dignity of human life postulates resistance to
taking a life through law's instrumentality. The ought not to
be done save in the rarest of rare cases when the alternative
option is unquestionably foreclosed.
11. In case Machhi Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR
1983, SC 957 the guidelines are laid down which are to be
kept in view, considering the question whether the case
belongs to the rarest of rare category. It was observed that
the following question may be asked and answered as a test
to determine the 'rarest of rare' case in which death
sentence can be inflicted:-
STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03
PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC.
:12:
1. Is there something uncommon
about the crime which renders
sentence of imprisonment for
life inadequate and calls for
death sentence?
2. Are the circumstances of the
crime such that there is no
alternative but to impose
death sentence even after
according maximum
weightage to the mitigating
circumstances which speak in
favour of the offender?
12. In the case of Machhi Singh (Supra) the
guidelines were culled out which are to be applied to the
facts of each individual case where the question of imposition
of death sentence arises. The following preposition emerges
from the Bachan Singh's case :-
i. The extreme penalty of death need not
be inflicted except in gravest cases of
extreme culpability.
ii. Before opting for the death penalty the
circumstances of the 'offender' also
required to be taken into consideration
along with the circumstances of the
'crime'.
iii. Life imprisonment is the rule and death
sentence is an exception. Death
sentence must be imposed only when
life imprisonment appears to be an
altogether inadequate punishment
having regard to the relevant
circumstances of the crime, and
STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03
PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC.
:13:
provided, and only provided, the option
to impose sentence of imprisonment
for life cannot be conscientiously
exercised having regard to the nature
and circumstances of the crime and all
the relevant circumstances.
iv. A balance sheet of aggravating and
mitigating circumstances has to be
drawn up and in doing so the mitigating
circumstances have to be accorded full
weightage and just balance has to be
struck between the aggravating and
the mitigating circumstances before
the option is exercised.
13. In case Bablu @ Mubarak Hussain Vs. State of
Rajasthan, AIR 2007 SC 697 the Supreme Court observed
as under :-
"In rarest of rare cases when collective conscience
of community is so shocked that it will except the
holders of the judicial power center to inflict death
penalty irrespective of their personal opinion as
regards desirability or otherwise of retaining death
penalty, death sentence can be awarded. The
community may entertain such sentiment in the
following circumstances :-
i. When the murder is committed, in an
extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical,
revolting and dastardly manner so as to
arouse intense and extreme indignation
of the community.
ii. When the murder is committed for a
motive which evinces total depravity and
meanness; e.g murder by hired assassin
STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03
PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC.
:14:
for money or reward or a cold-blooded
murder for gains of a person vis-a-vis
whom the murderer is in a dominating
position or in a position of trust, or
murder is committed in a course for
betrayal of the motherland.
iii. When murder of a member of a
Scheduled Caste or minority community
etc., is committed not for personal
reasons but in circumstances which
arouse social wrath, of in cases of 'bride
burning' or 'dowry deaths' or when
murder is committed in order to remarry
for the sake of extracting dowry once
again or to marry another woman on
account of infatuation.
iv. When the crime is enormous in
proportion. For instance when multiple
murders, say of all or almost all the
members of a family or a large number of
persons of a particular caste, community
or locality, are committed.
v. When the victim of murder is an innocent
child, or helpless woman or old or infirm
person or a person vis-a-vis whom the
murder is in a dominating position or a
public figure generally loved and
respected by the community."
14. On the basis of above observations and discussion
in the present facts and circumstances of the case, the
present case does not fall within the category of "rarest of
STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03
PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC.
:15:
the rare category", as such, the death penalty cannot be
awarded to the three convicts. The latest decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India pertaining to imposition of
sentence in the case of Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan
Bariya vs. State of Maharashtra, decided on
13.05.2009. Another important facet pertaining to
sentencing the procedure being considered. Imprisonment
for life as a penalty entails that the convicts must remain in
the imprisonment till his life i.e would never to set free from
the jail. However, the code of Criminal Procedure provides
power to executive under Section 433 CrPC which subject to
the restrictions provided by Section 433 CrPC. According to
which a convict sentenced to imprisonment for life for whose
death sentence has been commuted to imprisonment for life
cannot be released for prison unless served at least 14 years
of imprisonment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of Swami Shraddhanand vs. State Karnataka 2008
(13) SCC 767 imposed upon State the condition that
accused would not be entitled to any commutation or
premature release.
STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03
PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC.
:16:
15. Hence in the present case, I sentence all the three
convicts to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life each
along with fine of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five
Thousand) each, in default of payment of fine all
three convicts shall further undergo Simple
Imprisonment for a period of 03 (three) years each for
offence punishable under Section 364-A/34 IPC. All the
three convicts are also awarded to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of 07 (seven) years each
along with fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand)
each, in default of payment of fine all the three
convicts shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment
for a period of 01 (one) years each for offence
punishable under Section 307/34 IPC.
16. All these sentences awarded to all three
convicts shall run concurrently. Benefit of section 428
Cr.P.C. Shall be given to the convicts.
STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03
PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC.
:17:
17. It is made clear that in view of the law laid down
by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Swami
Shraddhanand (Supra) the appropriate sentence of
imprisonment of life is that the three convicts namely
Rajender @ Raju, Sanjeev @ Bahua and Riazuddin @ Riyaz
have to undergo actual sentence of 35 years and grant
of remission shall not be considered till the actual
sentence of 35 years. Copy of judgment and that of order
on sentence be provided to the three convicts, free of cost,
today itself. Sessions file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court (SANJAY KUMAR)
today i.e. 31.01.2011 ASJ-01 (NW),ROHINI
COURTS: DELHI.
STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03
PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC.
:18:
THE COURT OF SHRI SANJAY KUMAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - I,
DISTRICT NORTH WEST, ROOM NO. 308,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
SC No. 67/2008
FIR No. 213/2003
PS : SULTAN PURI
U/s. 363/364-A/368/307/34 IPC
STATE
VERSUS
1. RAJENDER KUMAR @ RAJU
S/O HAZARI LAL
R/O D-2/105, SECTOR-20
ROHINI, DELHI.
2. SANJEEV @ BAHUA S/O SUKHDEV RAI
R/O. D-2/110, SECTOR-20
ROHINI, DELHI.
3. RIAZUDDIN @ RIYAZ S/O SALAHUDDIN
R/O. D-2/107, SECTOR-20
ROHINI, DELHI.
Date of Institution : 03.09.2003
Date of receipt of case in this court : 24.11.2008
Arguments heard On : 24.01.2011
Order Announced On : 29.01.2011
SHRI P.K. VERMA, APP FOR THE STATE.
SHRI ASHOK DRALL, COUNSEL FOR THE ACCUSED.
STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03
PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC.
:19:
JUDGMENT
1. The factual matrix of the case is that on 04.03.03 DD No. 67B was received by ASI Rajender Singh who along with Ct. T. S. Tiwari reached house No. D-2/103, Sector-20, Rohini, Delhi where they met complainant Ram Chander. Complainant Ram Chander told the police that he is residing at the above mentioned address and is working in DDA. He further informed that on 04.03.03 at 5.00 pm his son namely Mohit, who had gone out of house for playing had not returned back. They had searched for his son Mohit every where but could not be found. He further stated in his complaint that some unknown person might have kidnapped his son. On this statement of complainant Ram Chander, rukka was prepared by ASI Rajender Singh and FIR u/s 363 IPC was got registered at Police Station through Ct. T. S Tiwari. During investigation, one ransom letter was produced by complainant Ram Chander to ASI Rajender Singh and accordingly Section 364-A IPC was also added in this case.
STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03 PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC. :20:
2. On 05.03.03 DD No. 45B was recorded at PS Keshav Puram about the recovery of one boy, aged 7-8 years from near Shiv Mandir, at Lawrence Road, Keshav Puram. DD No. 45-B was marked to ASI Sugan Lal and he went to the spot of recovery of boy where he came to know from Anjil s/o Mahavir Yadav and Sakal Dev Yadav s/o Jagdish that from the drain near the temple they heard cries of one child and on hearing the same they called the police. Name of the child was later on known as Mohit @ Abhishek s/o Ram Chander. This information was forwarded to PS Sultan Puri. Thereafter Mohit was taken to BJRM hospital for medical examination simple blunt injuries were found on the person of child Mohit. Accordingly ASI Rajender Singh added Section 308/363 IPC in the case. Statement of witnesses were recorded. Thereafter investigation of the case was handed over to SI Kailash Chander. During investigation SI Kailash Chander arrested accused Rajender @ Raju, Sanjeev @ Bahua and Riazuddin @ Riyaz were arrested and their arrest memo and body inspection memo were prepared. Disclosure statements of accused persons were also recorded. Motorcycle No. DL-1SH-
STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03 PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC. :21: 2410 used in the commission of offence was got recovered by the accused persons. All the three accused persons pointed the spot of crime. Thereafter on 12.03.03 Statement of child Mohit was recoded u/s 164 CrPC by the Ld. MM. Statement of witnesses was recorded and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed in the court for trial of offence u/s 363/364-A/368/307/34 IPC.
3. Ld. MM after compliance of section 207 CrPC committed the case to the court of Sessions.
4. Vide order dt. 24.07.04 Sh. M. R. Sethi, Ld. ASJ framed the charge against all the three accused persons for trial of offences punishable u/s 364-A/34 IPC as well as u/s 307/34 IPC. All the three accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. Prosecution in support of its case examined PW1 Ct. Ram Prasad (regarding DD no. 45-B), PW2 Smt. Alka (mother of kidnapped child), PW3 HC Subhash (duty STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03 PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC. :22: officer), PW4 Vijay ( neighbour of father of child), PW5 Ram Chander (father of child), PW6 Ct. T. S. Tiwari, PW7 Ct. Ravinder, PW8 Vijay Yadav (Clerk O/O Sub-registrar, birth and death), PW9 Madan Singh (Clerk, BJRM hospital), PW10 Kishan Lal (kidnapped child was kept with him for one night), PW11 Sh. Raj Kapoor, Ld. MM, PW12 Master Mohit (kidnapped child), PW13 Ct. Ved Parkash (arrest witness), PW14 Ct. Rajinder (arrest witness), PW15 Insp. Kailash Chander (Investigation Officer), PW16 SI Sugan Lal Gora (who went for recovery of kidnapped child from nalah), PW17 ASI Rajender Prasad (Investigation Offier), PW18 A. K. Singh (from FSL) and PW19 Ct. Rajesh Kumar.
6. As per statement of Ld. APP for State Sh. P.K.Verma, prosecution evidence was closed.
7. Statements of all the three accused persons were recorded u/s 313 CrPC and all three of them wished to examine any defence witness. Accordingly all three accused persons examined DW1 Prem Nath in their defence.
STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03 PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC. :23:
8. I have heard Sh. P. K. Verma, Ld. APP for the State and Sh. Ashok Drall, Ld. Counsel for all the three accused persons.
9. PW1 Ct. Ram Prasad, has proved DD no. 45-B Ex. PW1/A which is in the hand writing of HC Nagender of PS Keshav Puram. In cross examination by counsel for accused he has denied that DD no. 45-B was ante time.
10. PW2 Smt. Alka, who is the mother of kidnapped child, has testified that about 1½ year prior to 25.08.04 her son Mohit was kidnapped on a motorcycle by accused Raju and on 05.03.03 accused Raju made a phone call at her house at 10.00 am which was attended by her husband and demanded Rs. 4 lacs. Thereafter they got perturbed and while they were coming out of their house, they found a letter Ex. J1 lying on the gate of their house. It was mentioned in the said letter that police should not be informed and Rs. 4 lacs were demanded. She has further deposed that her husband and their neighbour took the letter to the police and thereafter she became unconscious. Later on her statement was recorded by police.
STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03 PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC. :24:
11. In her cross examination, she has stated that all the three accused persons are her neighbours but she is not on visiting terms with them. She has stated that accused Raju took her residential telephone number when the same was installed at their house 2-3 years back. She has then stated that she came to know about the kidnapping of his son Mohit after returning from market at about 5.00 - 6.00 pm. She has stated in her cross examination that her husband was not home when she came back from market and he came after half an hour of her arrival. She searched for her son in the neighbour hood but could not find him and when her husband reached home, a large crowd had gathered at their house. She has also stated that her husband telephoned the police over phone about the incident but she was not aware when the call was made. She has also stated that Mohit was never sent by her to the house of accused persons for playing. She has then stated that she informed her neighbour Vijay about the missing of her son Mohit. She was confronted with her statement on the aspect that she had told the police that her son had been kidnapped STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03 PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC. :25: on motorcycle by Raju. She has further stated that her husband told her immediately about the telephonic talk with the kidnapper immediately and at that time Vijay was also present. She denied the suggestion that Mohit had not been kidnapped by any one or that no ransom call had been received at her house or that no ransom letter has been found near gate of her house or that her statement was not recorded by police.
12. She has also stated in her cross examination that the letter for ransom was read over by her husband and she had only listened to the same and Vijay was also present at their house at that time. She has also stated the said letter was found folded in an envelope which was of white colour. She denied the suggestion that quarrel between her and accused persons regarding the sewage flowing from their houses towards her house or that any quarrel took place between accused persons and herself on 02.02.03 or that her husband had threatened the accused persons to mend their ways or else they will be falsely involved in a false case or STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03 PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC. :26: that any physical quarrel took place between accused persons and them on 04.03.03 or that she also intervened in the quarrel or that her daughter and Mohit also came there and received injuries during course of that quarrel or that at that time her husband had threatened to implicate the accused persons and not let them live in the gali or that none of the accused has any motorcycle of black colour. She has also denied that she has deposed under the pressure of her husband or that her son was never kidnapped and she was about his whereabouts on 05.03.03 or that no phone call for ransom was received at his house or that she had enmical relations with accused Raju.
13. PW3 HC Subhash, has proved the copy of FIR Ex. PW3/A which was written by him on 04.03.03 at PS Sultanpuri as he was posted there as duty officer on that day.
14. PW4 Vijay, who is the neighbour of complainant, has deposed that on 05.03.03 he had gone to the house of Ram Chander to enquire about the well being of his son STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03 PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC. :27: Mohit and when they both met Ram Chander told him that he had just received a call and a demand of Rs. 4 lacs and thereafter Ram Chander showed him a letter which was in respect of kidnapping of Mohit and demand of Rs. 4 lacs. Thereafter they both took the said letter to police station and the same was seized by the police.
15. This witness was declared hostile by Ld. APP for the State and in his cross examination, Vijay deposed that when Ram Chander told him about the telephone call for ransom, he also told him that voice of the caller resembled with Raju. He admitted it as correct that letter Ex. J1 was picked up by Ram Chander from the gate of his house and he then showed it to him and that wife of Ram Chander was also there.
16. In his cross examination by counsel for accused, Vijay has stated that he is known to Ram Chander as he too is working in DDA and is residing in his neighbourhood. He has stated that he was on visiting terms with Ram Chander STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03 PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC. :28: whose house is about 100 ft. away from his house and on 05.03.03 he had not gone to his office. He has further stated that Ram Chander had told him about the missing of his son on 04.03.03 at about 7.00 pm. He stated that they went to Police Station on 05.03.03 on cycle. He has also stated in cross examination that they both are employed in DDA for the last about 19 years. Ram Chander did not tell him as to how he received that letter. He has denied the suggestion that no letter had been recovered or that Ram Chander is not his neighbour or that Ram Chander did not tell anything to him about any ransom call or letter or that Ram Chander never told him that the voice of the caller appeared to be that of Raju or that there was any dispute between Ram Chander and family of accused Raju or that accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case.
17. PW5 Ram Chander, who is the father of kidnapped child and complainant of this case, has deposed on 05.03.03, when he was residing at House No. D-2/103, Sector-20, Rohini, Delhi and employed in DDA, he received a STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03 PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC. :29: telephone call at about 10.00 am and the caller told him that his son Mohit was in his custody and the caller asked him to arrange a sum of Rs. 4 lacs in case he wanted to see his son alive otherwise his son would be killed. The called also asked that he had already sent a letter to his house and same might have been received by him. On hearing this he got perplexed and when he opened the gate of his house, his neighbour Vijay was standing there and at the same time he saw one letter Ex. J1 lying on the floor inside the gate. Thereafter he picked the said letter and read the same. The same was a ransom note demanding Rs. 4 lacs. Thereafter he along with Vijay went to Police Station and handed over the said letter to IO ASI Rajender Singh and same was seized vide memo Ex. PW4/A. Thereafter at about 2.00 am on 06.03.03 he received a phone call from police station Keshav Puram and was informed that his son was in the police station and thereafter he went to police station Sultan Puri and took a constable with him and went to police station Keshav Puram and brought back his son from there. Thereafter he narrated all the facts about kidnapping of his STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03 PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC. :30: son as narrated by his son Mohit. He has further deposed that on 08.03.03 on seeing all the three accused persons in Mangol Puri, he informed police about the same and he along with two police officers and SI Kailash Chander reached S Block Bus stand Mangol Puri and saw all the three accused standing at the bus stand. Thereafter all the accused persons were apprehended along with the motorcycle. All the three accused persons were arrested and interrogated in this case and their disclosure statement Ex. PW5/A, Ex. PW5/B and Ex. PW5/C were recorded.
18. Thereafter this witness turned hostile and was cross examined by Ld. APP for state. He has admitted it as correct that on 04.03.03 he had gone to police station Sultan Puri and lodged a report Ex. PW5/D regarding his son having been taken by someone and had also told the police that the voice of the caller who had made the call regarding ransom was of Raju was missing and that he told about this fact to his wife and his neighbour Vijay and also found ransom letter at the door of his house. He has also admitted that all the STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03 PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC. :31: three accused person were arrested in his presence and their personal search was also conducted in his presence and that motorcycle was also seized vide memo Ex. PW5/H and that specimen handwriting of Raju had been taken on 17 sheets of paper by police in his presence and same were seized.
19. In his cross examination by counsel for accused, father of kidnapped child, has deposed that he and Vijay have been working for about 19-20 years and are neighbours for the past 6-7 years. He has stated that on 05.03.03 when Vijay had reached his house, some other neighbours were also present at his house also and he told Vijay about the phone call on his arrival. He had stated that on 04.03.03 when he returned from his office he saw that crowd had gathered outside his house and someone from the crowd informed him that his son had gone missing and thereafter he left for looking about his son and returned back by 9.00 pm. He has further stated that he was not on visiting terms to the house of any of the accused persons. He has further stated in cross examination that he had gone to look after his STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03 PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC. :32: son on foot and covered an area of about 3-4 kilometers. He has also stated that he did not expressed any suspicion on anyone when he went to police station to lodge missing report regarding his son Mohit.
20. He has further deposed that on 05.03.03 when he received the phone call for ransom, he had a talk with the caller for about one minute and he recognized the voice of the caller as that of accused Rajender but he did not tell the caller that he had recognized his voice and did not ask him as to why he had kidnapped his son. He has also stated that he did not talked to parents of accused Rajender to inform them that their son had kidnapped his son and a ransom call has also been made by him and he did not inform anyone in the colony that accused Rajender had given a ransom call and kidnapped his son. He has also stated that on 05.03.03 he did not inform the police that Rajender had kidnapped his son and had given a ransom call. He has also stated that he told the police on 05.03.03 that accused Rajinder is not present in his house. He has denied the suggestion that al STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03 PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC. :33: the three accused persons were present in their houses or that accused Rajender @ Raju had been picked up by the police at his instance.
21. He has further stated that on 05.03.03 he had told his wife about the ransom call and his wife had become unconscious only after he had gone to the police station along with ransom letter. He has further stated that he did not mention about the ransom letter to anybody in the crowd either inside the house or outside the house except Vijay who was present in the house. The sender of the ransom letter had not mentioned his name on the same and the same was not in any envelope and was blank from one side. He has further stated that he handed over the ransom letter to ASI Rajender Singh in the police station and the same was seized by him and thereafter he returned back to his house. He has further stated that on the night of 5/6.03.03 he received a called from police station Keshav Puram at about 2.30 am and was informed that his son was in the police station and after informing his wife about the said call left for police STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03 PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC. :34: station Sultan Puri along with a neighbouring TSR driver and from police station Sultan Puri he along with a Constable went to police station Keshav Puram. He has also stated that he had signed some papers at police station Keshav Puram regarding the recovery of his son and he reached back home with his son at about 6.30 or 7.00 am after visiting police station Sultan Puri. He has further stated that his son Mohit narrated all the facts to him only and the same were then explained by him to the investigation officer at police station. He has stated that statement of Mohit was recorded by Sh. Raj Kumar, Ld. MM on 12.03.03.
22. This witness has also deposed that 08.03.03 he along with investigation officer Insp. Kailash Chander and two other constables reached S Block, Mangol Puri at about 6.30 pm and from there all the three accused persons were arrested and one motorcycle was also recovered by the investigation officer. Thereafter personal search of the accused persons was taken and then they all left for the place from where his son was kidnapped.
STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03 PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC. :35:
23. He has denied the suggestion of counsel for accused that nick name of accused Sanjiv is not Bawha or that because of water flow in the nali in their gali a quarrel took place between his wife and accused persons on 02.03.03 and on 04.03.03 he had grappled with the accused persons on the same issue and his son received injuries or that he had threatened the accused persons that he will get the accused persons implicated in false case. He has denied that on the same day he had sent his son to the house of his relatives at Trilok Puri or that his son was not kidnapped and with the connivance of Anjal Mahavir and Shakal Dev Yadav, accused persons were implicated in this case falsely or that accused Rajender was lifted from his house on 05.03.03 and some blank papers were got signed from him or that no ransom call was received by him or that Mohit did not tell him anything about the entire happening after his recovery or that Shakal Dev Yadav and Anjil are son of his relatives or that neither he had seen accused Rajender at Mangol Puri area nor was he arrested in his presence nor his disclosure statement was recorded by the police. He has also denied STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03 PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC. :36: that none of the accused pointed out the place of incident in his presence or that he did not hand over any letter to investigation office or that same was not sealed in his presence or that he did not receive any ransom call or that no specimen handwriting of accused Rajender was taken by the police in his presence or that accused persons have been falsely implicated.
24. PW6 Ct. T. S. Tiwari, has deposed that on 04.03.03 on receipt of DD no. 67-B he along with ASI Rajinder had gone to the house of Ram Chander, complainant who told them that his son has been missing and on the statement of Ram Chander, ASI Rajinder Singh prepared rukka and he took rukka to police station for registration of FIR. Thereafter IO recorded statements of 2-3 persons at the spot and thereupon he along with Ram Chander and IO went for search of boy but he could not be found. On 05.03.03 Ram Chander along with his neighbour Vijay came to police station and handed over one ransom letter to ASI Rajinder Singh and same was seized by ASI Rajinder Singh vide memo STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03 PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC. :37: Ex. PW4/A. He has further deposed that complainant Ram Chander told them that the person who made ransom call will call them again and accordingly they all wen to the house of Ram Chander and waited for the call of kidnapper for three hours but no call was received there. Thereafter investigation officer recorded statements of Ram Chander and Vijay and returned to police station.
25. In his cross examination by counsel for the accused, he has stated that on the night of 4/5.03.03 after registration of FIR, he along with ASI Rajinder Singh and Ram Chander had gone to search the boy on foot. He has further stated that Ram Chander did not laid suspicion on any person in his presence. He has denied the suggestion of counsel for accused that accused Rajinder was made to sit in the police station by the IO since 5-6 am on 05.03.03 or that investigation officer had made Rajinder sign on many documents and also obtained his handwriting on many papers or that copy of DD no. 67-B was never received by the investigation officer on 04.03.03 or that they had not gone to STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03 PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC. :38: the house of Ram Chander on that day. He has further denied that statement of Ram Chander was never recorded or that he never joined the investigation of this case or that no ransom letter was handed over to the investigation officer by Ram Chander or the same was never seized or that no proceedings were were conducted in his presence or that no information had been given to any police post or the PCR regarding the missing child.
26. PW7 Ct. Ravinder, has proved DD no. 67-B Ex. PW7/A which is in his own handwriting. PW8 Vijay Yadav, record clerk from the office of Sub-registrar, Birth and Death, Najafgarh Zone, Delhi has proved the entry of birth of male child born to Ram Chander and Smt. Alka Devi which is Ex. PW8/A. PW9 Madan Singh, record clerk from BJRM hospital has proved the MLC of Mohit Ex. PW9/A which was in the handwriting of Dr. Tarun Sehgal and opinion on which was given by Dr. Rajesh Sinha. PW10 Kishan Lal, has deposed that two persons had brought a minor child to him about three years prior to 31.05.06 and food was served to the said STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03 PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC. :39: child and those two persons made that child sleep with him for about 1½ hours. He has further stated that those persons took back the child on the next morning and never came back.
27. This witness was declared hostile by Ld. APP and during his cross examination PW10 stated that his statement was recorded by police after making enquiries from his at the time when police brought accused Raju before him.
28. In his cross examination by counsel for accused, this witness has stated that he did not see the accused bringing the child to him but this fact was told to him by his wife and told him the name of accused Raju, who is the son of her chacha.
29. PW11 Sh. Raj Kapoor, Ld. MM has proved statement recorded by him u/s 164 CrPC on 12.03.03 and the same is Ex. PW11/A. STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03 PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC. :40:
30. PW12 Mohit, is the child who was kidnapped by accused persons. He has deposed that on 04.03.03 he was studying in 3rd standard in Sarvodaya Bal Vidhyala and on that day at about 4/5 pm he was playing on road on the back side of his house. He further stated that accused Raju and Riyazuddin came to him and told him that his mother is calling. On this he replied that his mother had told him not go with anybody and he started crying but the accused persons forcibly took him away on a motorcycle to a room where one Sanjeev was also present. He has further stated that he remained with that Sanjeev, and with one more man and woman the whole night and the accused left that place. On the next day accused Raju and accused Sanjeev came to that room took him to zoo. While they were coming back from zoo their motorcycle broke down and accused Raju and Sanjeev called accused Riyazuddin. Thereafter accused Raju and Sanjeev took him to a dark place and talked to each other that his father has refused to pay the ransom and have also informed the police so they should kill him. He has further stated that they both strangulated him and accused STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03 PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC. :41: Sanjeev @ Bauya hit a brick on his head and he became unconscious and when he regained consciousness he found himself before the police. Later on he was produced before the Ld. MM who recorded his statement.
31. In his cross examination by counsel for accused this witness has deposed that when he had gone to play his brother and sister were at home and his mother was not at home. He has also stated that he had seen accused Raju previously also on the motorcycle. He has stated that he had told Sanjeev, another man and woman in the room where he was kept that he has been kidnapped and he be taken to his mother and had also given his telephone number to them also but they told him that his mother is not reachable. He has further stated that he cannot tell the registration number of the motorcycle. This witness has also stated that all the three accused persons were residing in the same gali. On 05.03.03 when he woke up, he again told the woman, accused Raju and Riyazuddin to take him to his mother but they kept on saying that they will be taking his mother soon.
STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03 PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC. :42: He has further stated that inside the zoo he did not tell anything to any public person as accused persons kept on assuring him that they will take him to his mother. He has denied that his father had tutored him to give statement u/s 164 CrPC. He has further stated that he could not tell as to where he regained consciousness but he gave his telephone number to the police and thereafter his father came. He has denied the suggestion that accused Sanjeev is not called by the name of Sanjeev @ Bauya or that before recording his statement u/s 164 CrPC he was tutored by his father and the investigation officer or that he was not taken away forcibly by the accused persons or that he was kept in a room where he met one uncle and aunt or that the accused persons did not strangulate his neck or that accused Sanjeev @ Bauya did not hit upon his head with a brick or that he never became unconscious or that his father had sent him to Trilok Puri and falsely implicated accused persons in this case. He has also denied that he had not gone to play on the road on the back side of his house or that he did not give his phone number to the police where he regained consciousness or STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03 PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC. :43: that on 04.03.03 a quarrel took place in front of his house between his parents and accused persons and during that scuffle he got some scratches on his body or that he has deposed at the instance of his father and investigation officer.
32. PW13 Ct. Ved Prakash, has deposed that on 08.03.03 he joined the investigation of this case with SI Kailash Chander. He has deposed that on 08.03.03 he along with SI Kailash Chander, Ct. Rajender and Ram Chander reached Mangol Puri bus stand at about 06.10 pm and on the instance of complainant Ram Chander, accused persons were arrested in this case. All three accused persons were arrested vide separate memos, their personal search was taken by the investigation officer vide separate memos and their disclosure statement was also recorded. During interrogation accused persons pointed out the place of occurrence and pointing out memo was prepared vide memo Ex. PW5/J. Thereafter accused took us to Trilok Puri to the STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03 PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC. :44: house of brother in law of accused Rajinder where the child was kept. Motorcycle used by accused persons in commission of crime was also got recovered by them and thereafter his statement was recorded by investigation office.
33. In his cross examination this witness has stated that the accused had tried to run away when they tried to apprehend them. Investigation officer has asked 4-5 persons to join the proceedings when accused persons were apprehended, but none agreed to join. He has denied the suggestion of counsel for accused that investigation officer had not asked any public person to join the investigation or that he did not join the investigation on 08.03.03. It is further denied by the witness that Ram Chander did not come to police station in his presence or that he along with Investigation officer did not go to the bus stand Mangol Puri and overpowered the accused. He has further denied the suggestion that accused persons were not arrested in his presence or that their disclosure statements were not STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03 PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC. :45: recorded in his presence or that he has deposed falsely at the instance of investigation officer and all the three accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case.
34. PW14 Ct. Rajender Kumar has deposed on the same line as has been deposed by PW13 as they both remained with Insp. Kailash Chander during investigation of the present case. In his cross examination by counsel for accused he has denied that he did not join the investigation of this case or that accused was not arrested before him or that accused persons did not make any disclosure statement or that no motorcycle was recovered at the instance of any accused and accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case.
35. PW15 Insp. Kailash Chander, has deposed that on 08.03.03 he was posted as SI at PS Sultan Puri and further investigation of this case was given to him. At 6 pm complainant Ram Chander came to police station and informed him that Rajender @ Raju, Sanjeev and Riyazuddin STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03 PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC. :46: had kidnapped his son Mohit and that he had seen the above accused persons in the area of PS Mangol Puri and thereafter he along with Ct. Rajender, Ct. Ved Prakash and complainant went to the place where accused persons were seen. While searching for accused persons they reached Mangolpuri Bus Terminal at around 6.30 pm and at the pointing out of complainant all the three accused persons were apprehended and a yamaha motorcycle No. DL 1SH 2410 was also recovered from them. Accused Rajender @ Raju was interrogated and arrested vide memo Ex. PW5/E. His personal search was taken vide memo Ex. PW5/E1. His body inspection memo Ex. PW15/A was also prepared. Thereafter accused Sanjeev was arrested vide memo Ex. PW5/G, his personal search was done vide memo Ex. PW5/G1. His body inspection memo was prepared vide memo Ex.PW15/B. Thereafter accused Riyazuddin was arrested vide memo Ex. PW5/F, his personal search was taken vide memo Ex. PW5/F1. Body inspection of this accused was prepared vide memo Ex. PW15/C. Thereupon he took specimen handwriting of accused Rajender @ Raju on 17 sheet Ex. PW15/D1 to STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03 PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC. :47: D17. These sheets were seized vide memo Ex. PW5/A. Motorcycle was seized vide memo Ex. PW5/H. Pointing out memo Ex. PW5/J was prepared at the instance of accused persons. Thereafter accused persons led them to the place where they had thrown the child presuming him to be dead. Pointing out memo of that place Ex. PW13/A was also prepared. Site plan Ex. PW15/E was also prepared. Thereafter accused persons took the police party to Trilok Puri at the house of Kishan Lal where they had kept the child in the night. Pointing out memo Ex. PW13/B was also prepared at the instance of accused persons.
36. He has further deposed that on 09.03.03 accused persons were medically examined at SGM hospital. On 12.03.03 complainant Ram Chander came to the police station with his son Mohit and they both were taken to Tis Hazari and at Tis Hazari Courts statement of Mohit U/s 164 CrPC was recorded by the Ld. MM. On 20.04.03 Ex. PW15/B1 to B17 were sent to CFSL, Hyderabad for examination. Thereafter statement of witnesses was recorded.
STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03 PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC. :48:
37. In his cross examination by counsel for accused Insp. Kailash Chander has stated that complainant Ram Chander had come to the police station on 08.03.03 at 10.30 am and told him that he had seen the kidnappers of his son at Mangol Puri and thereafter he along with Ct. Ved Prakash, Ct. Rajender and complainant Ram Chander had left. He has further stated that on seeing them, the accused persons tried to run away but they were apprehended by them. He has further stated that no helmet was seized from the accused persons when motorcycle was seized. He denied that disclosure statement of accused Rajender was written while sitting in the police station and that accused Rajender did not disclose anything to him. He has further denied on 08.03.03 neither complainant Ram Chander came to police station nor he disclosed that accused persons are present in the area of Mangol Puri or that no raiding party was formed or that accused persons were not arrested from Mangol Puri bus terminal or that no disclosure statement was made by accused Rajender and remaining two accused persons or that no specimen handwriting of accused Rajender was taken on STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03 PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC. :49: 17 sheets. He has also denied that no motorcycle was seized or that all proceedings were carried out at the police station at the instance of Ram Chander and ASI Rajender Singh or that accused Rajender was already in the police station since 05.03.03 and accused Riyazuddin and Sanjay were lifted from their residence or that he did not conduct fair investigation or that the accused persons did not point out the place of kidnapping or that he did not went to Keshav Puram and Trilok Puri or that accused persons have been falsely implicated in a false case.
38. PW16 SI Sugan Lal Gora, has deposed that on 05.03.03 when he was posted as ASI police station Keshav Puram, DD no. 45B Ex.PW1/A was received by him at 11.45 pm which was regarding abandonment of a child aged about 7-8 years near Shiv Mandir, Lawrence Road. Thereafter he along with Ct. Balbir went to the spot and met Sakaldev and Anjil who told them that they took out a boy from the nala, who was crying and informed the police at no. 100. They also told him that PCR van took the child, who was injured, to STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03 PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC. :50: police station Keshav Puram. Thereafter he allowed Sakaldev and Anjil to go and he and Ct. Balbir left for police station but when they reached near red light Britania Chowk, he found one PCR there and found the child in that PCR van. Thereupon he along with Ct. Balbir boarded that PCR van and took the injured child to BJRM hospital where the boy was medically examined. The child was frightened, unable to speak and was shivering as his clothes were wet with mud. He gave blanket to the child and also gave tea and biscuits to the child and after some time the child regained his strength. MLC of the child was collected by him and child was brought to police station Keshav Puram where he disclosed his name as Mohit @ Abhishek s/o Ram Chander Paul and also gave his phone number. He has then deposed that when he called the said number, Ram Chander picked up the same and informed him that he has got an FIR registered at police station Sultan Puri. Thereupon he called police station Sultan Puri and duty officer informed him that a case of missing of Mohit is investigated by ASI Rajender Singh. He talked to ASI Rajender Singh on phone and briefed him and after some STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03 PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC. :51: time HC Narender Singh and Ram Chander came to police station and he identified Mohit to be his son. Custody of Mohit was given to HC Narender Singh and MLC and OPD slip of child were also handed over to him. He has further deposed that after handing over Mohit to HC Narender Kumar, DD no. 54-B was entered by him which is Ex. PW16/A.
39. In his cross examination SI Sugan Lal Gora has stated that he got signatures of Ram Chander, father of child Mohit on DD No. 54-B in the police station. He has also deposed that he did not seize the mud soaked clothes of the child Mohit. He has denied the suggestion that DD no. 45B Ex. PW1/A and DD no. 54-B Ex. PW16/A are false and fabricated or that child Mohit did not disclose name of his father, address and telephone to him or that he never visited the spot where Mohit was recovered and never met with Sakaldev and Anjil or that he did not carry out any proceedings of recovery of child or handing over of the child and deposed falsely at the instructions of the investigation officer.
STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03 PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC. :52:
40. PW17 ASI Rajender Parsad, has deposed that on 4/5.03.03 he was marked DD no. 67-B and he along with Ct. T. S. Tiwari went to the spot and recorded statement of Ram Chander, Ex. PW5/D upon which rukka was prepared by him and FIR of this case was registered through Ct. T. S. Tiwari, Ex. PW3/A. He has further deposed that information was given to nearby police stations, loudspeaker was played in the are giving information about missing of Mohit and information was also given to PCR. He has further testified that on the next day Ram Chander and Vijay came to police station and handed over to a ransom letter Ex. J1 to him received by them. The said letter was seized vide memo Ex. PW4/A. Thereafter he went to the house of Ram Chander and waited for call from the abductors but no call came. He has further deposed that on 06.03.03 Ram Chander produced his missing son Mohit in police station and thereupon he recorded statement of Mohit and Ram Chander and thereafter he went to police station Keshav Puram and met ASI Sugan Lal and recorded his statement. Thereafter investigation of this case was handed over to SI Kailash Chander.
STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03 PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC. :53:
41. During cross examination this witness has stated that he remained at the house of Ram Chander for about 2-2½ hours and Ram Chander did not cast suspicion on anybody. He has also stated on 06.03.03 when he was in police station, duty officer informed him about the recovery of Mohit. He has also stated that he came to know the name Sakaldev and Anjil from ASI Sugan Lal. He has denied the suggestion of counsel for accused that on 05.03.03 he did not record statement of Ram Chander and Vijay and also not seized any ransom note or that on the instructions of Ram Chander he called accused Rajender at PS and forcibly make him to write ransom note on 05.03.03 or that he did not search for the child with Ct. Tiwari or that Ram Chander and Smt. Alka had not given statement about the receiving of any ransom call and recognition of voice of any person. He has also denied the suggestion that he had conducted the whole of the proceedings while sitting in the police station and at the instance of Ram Chander or that he has deposed falsely.
STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03 PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC. :54:
42. PW18 A. K. Singh, Asstt. Government Examiner, Directorate of Forensic Science, Ministry of Home Affairs, Kolkata has proved his report Ex. PW18/A regarding comparison of document Ex. J1 (original ransom note) and Ex. PW15/D1 to D17 (17 sheets having specimen handwriting of accused Rajender). PW19 Ct. Rajesh Kumar, has deposed that on 20.04.03 he deposited sealed exhibits at CFSL Hyderabad.
43. All three accused persons in their defence led the evidence of DW1 Prem Nath. He has deposed that there was a quarrel between Ram Chander and the accused persons in the month of February, 2003. Thereafter on 04.03.03, a quarrel took place between Ram Chander, his wife and the accused persons and in the said quarrel son of Ram Chander got scratches on his head. He has further deposed that Ram Chander used to extend threats to accused persons otherwise he would get them implicated in a false case and they will be lodged in jail for life. He has further testified that on 04.03.03 after the quarrel with accused persons, Ram STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03 PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC. :55: Chander took his child with him and came back alone at 10.00 pm in the night. On 05.03.03 he returned back with his child at about 2.00 pm or 2.30 pm. Other two accused persons were apprehended by police from their houses on 08.03.03. He has deposed that he never noticed the accused persons in possession of any two wheeler and he did not see them driving any two wheeler.
44. In his cross examination by Ld. APP for the State he has stated that he used to work as tailor master at his house and used to fetch the work from Lakhi Ram Chowk, Pooth Kalan, Delhi. He has stated that Ram Chander used to quarrel with him also but he never made any complaint either to police or the court. He has denied the suggestion of Ld. APP for the State that no quarrel took place between Ram Chander, Rajender, Riyazuddin and Sanjeev on 02.02.03, 04.03.03 and 05.03.03 or that accused persons are in habit of liquor, meat etc. and they used to be in crisis of money for their requirements or that he has seen the child of Ram Chander in his custody on 04.03.03 in the evening or STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03 PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC. :56: that the child was taken by Ram Chander himself and he returned back without the child or that Ram Chander never threatened accused persons for dire consequences. He also denied the suggestion that he did not make any complaint before police or court as the child was kidnapped by accused persons and due to enmity with Ram Chander he has deposed falsely in this case or that accused persons never lifted from their houses or that he was also involved with the accused persons for sharing the ransom amount and that is why he has deposed falsely.
45. I have considered the respective submissions of both the counsels and gone through the record as well as the judgments cited by counsel for accused persons. The first charge against all the accused persons is of kidnapping for ransom. In order to prove this charge the prosecution examined 19 witnesses. The first step that prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt is the kidnapping of PW12 Master Mohit. The testimony of PW8 Vijay Yadav, a clerk from office of Sub-registrar, birth and death office, Najafgarh Road STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03 PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC. :57: proved the date of birth of Master Mohit as 22.07.95 as per Ex. PW8/A. It establishes that on the day of incident Master Mohit was aged about 09 years.
46. The star witness of the prosecution is PW12 Master Mohit. He was examined after about four years and ten months after the incident. His testimony is herein above discussed in detail. He specifically deposed that on 04.03.03 at about 4-5 pm, while he was playing at the back side of his house, accused Rajender @ Raju and Riyazuddin forcibly took him. He identified both the accused persons. He further stated that they had taken him on a motorcycle and kept him in a room where third accused Sanjeev was present. Thereafter he stated that fact that on next day they took him to Zoo and lastly they took him to a dark place and tried to strangulate him and then he became unconscious and there he heard that his father has refused to pay the ransom to them. Sanjeev @ Bahua also him on his head. He proved statement recorded by Ld. MM PW11 Sh. Raj Kapoor u/s 164 STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03 PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC. :58: CrPC Ex. PW11/B. In the cross examination he explained that after changing the school uniform he went to play and one child named Soni was playing with him and he was waiting for his other friends. He does not remember where he went to the park with accused Rajender @ Raju & Riyazuddin for playing. He kept crying and weeping when he was forcibly taken by Rajender @ Raj & Riyazuddin on motorcycle. He also disclosed the kidnapping to Sanjeev @ Bahua, uncle and aunt where he was kept in a room. He also asked to telephone her mother. He did not know the exact location of house of Riyazuddin but he resided in the same gali. He denied the defence put up by counsel for accused that there was a quarrel between his parents and parents of accused Rajender @ Raju & Riyazuddin on the issue of drainage. He explained that at the zoo the accused persons assured him to taken him to his mother. He did not tell anything to any public person. He corroborated the fact that he was tutored by his father. He further corroborated that he had given the police his father's telephone number when he regained consciousness in the night. He was confronted at length with STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03 PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC. :59: his statement recorded u/s 164 CrPC. He denied all the suggestions that he was not forcibly kidnapped or accused persons did not strangulate him by neck or he was kept at the house of Kishan Lal, relative of accused Sanjeev @ Bayua. He denied that during quarrel on 04.03.03 he had received some scratches on his body.
47. The Ld. Counsel for accused vehemently submitted that PW12 Master Mohit, a child witness is not reliable. His version is improving at every juncture and on confrontation with statement u/s 164 CrPC it establishes that he was tutored by his father. In fact he was never kidnapped, therefore, the deposition of PW12 Master Mohit is not the true and correct version. It cannot be believed as it appear to be tutored. He has relied upon judgment of ORSU Venkat Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 2004(3) JCC 1603.
STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03 PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC. :60:
48. I have gone through the submissions made by counsel for accused and have perused the judgment relied upon by him. I have also gone through statement u/s 164 CrPC recorded by Ld. MM Sh. Raj Kapoor, PW11. The fact has to be borne in mind that a child aged around 09 years had undergone such a cruel incident and trauma. He was examined by Ld. MM on 12.3.03. Although he was produced on 07.03.03 just after one day of his recovery on 05.03.03. The testimony of PW11 Sh. Raj Kapoor, Ld. MM remained unrebutted. In substance statement of PW12 Master Mohit u/s 164 CrPC narrates the incident. It seems that whatever was asked by Ld. MM, PW12 has replied about the incident. He appeared in witness box after about 05 years and in substance he deposed the exact facts as to what happened with him. The confrontation with the statement u/s 164 CrPC does not show any drastic improvement in his version but he explained the incident more comfortably before the court. I do not find any substance in the contention of counsel for accused. The testimony of PW12 Master Mohit successfully passes the test of cross examination. I do not find any STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03 PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC. :61: content which dilute the veracity or truthfulness of his version before the court. The judgment URSU Venkat Rao (supra) is distinguishable in the present facts and circumstances of the case.
49. The fact in respect of the kidnapping is further corroborated by PW2 Smt. Alka, mother of the kidnapped child Master Mohit. She deposed that on 04.03.03 Mohit was kidnapped. In the cross examination she specifically answered the question that accused Raju had asked for her telephone number which was given to him being a neighbour at the time of installation of telephone connection. PW5 Ram Chander, father of the kidnapped child also corroborates the fact of kidnapping on 04.03.03. he proved the report lodged with the police Ex PW5/D. Although he stated these facts when Ld. APP for state cross examined him but it does not effect the prosecution case in any manner. PW5 Ram Chander was examined after about 02 years of the incident.
STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03 PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC. :62:
50. The prosecution further examined two police witnesses PW17 ASI Rajender Prasad who went at the house of complainant Ram Chander on receiving DD no. 67-B Ex. PW7/A along with PW1 Ct. Ram Prasadi. A rukka was sent for registration of FIR Ex. PW3/A. Ct. Ram Prasad has further corroborated these facts of recording of FIR and he took the rukka. Both remained cogent and coherent and explained facts during cross examination and denied all the suggestion put to them. The most important witness is PW10 Kishan Lal. As per his testimony he is the relative of accused Sanjeev @ Bayua. He specified that about 03 years prior to the day he was examined but no detail was given of date or month or year. Two persons brought a minor child to him. He served food and slept with the child. He turned out to be hostile witness but during the cross examination by Ld. APP for the State, he also testified that accused Sanjeev might be the same person who brought the child. He also identified accused Sanjeev @ Bayua and he knew accused Raju before the incident. He explained that it is now 2-3 years old incident. In cross examination by counsel for accused, he STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03 PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC. :63: explained that accused Raju is the son of chacha of his wife. This witness corroborates very important fact that Master Mohit was brought by accused persons to his house at Trilok Puri and kept there for one night. This fact is corroborated during investigation when after arrest, accused persons pointed out the house of PW10 Kishan Lal.
51. Ld. Defence counsel for the accused persons in support of his contention relied upon Javed Masood and Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2010 CRI. L. J. 2020. The judgment relied upon by the defence counsel is distinguishable. I do not find any substance in the same. PW10 Kishan Lal through his evidence is not supporting the defence of the accused persons and also not declared hostile by the prosecution. Therefore obviously his evidence is not a binding on prosecution case. In these circumstances the above mentioned citation is distinguishable and is not of any help to the accused persons. PW15 Insp. Kailash Chander has also stated in cross examination that he did not include PW10 Kishan Lal as accused in this case and PW10 Kishan Lal STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03 PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC. :64: had told him that accused Rajinder @ Raju introduced Mohit as son of brother of Sanjeev. He has further stated that at Trilok Puri at the house of PW10 Kishan Lal, he prepared the pointing out memo Ex. PW13/B at the instance of accused persons.
52. On the basis of above discussion, prosecution succeeded in establishing that PW12 Master Mohit was kidnapped by all the three accused persons on 04.03.03 and kept at the house of Kishan Lal for a night.
53. Prosecution has examined PW1 Ct. Ram Prasad to proved DD no. 45-B Ex. PW1/A. As per this DD, one child aged 7-8 years was found in abandoned condition at Lawrance Road, Keshav Puram near Shiv Mandir. On this DD no. 45-B, PW16 SI Sugan Lal Gora conducted the proceedings. According to his testimony he along with Ct. Balbir went there and found one Sakaldev and Anjil who told them that they saw a boy crying in the nala. They took him out and called the police at no. 100. They further stated that STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03 PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC. :65: child has been removed to police station Keshav Puram by PCR Van. They also explained the injures received by that boy. PW16 SI Sugan Lal Gora found the PCR near the red light chowk Pitampura and one child was there in the PCR.
54. Thereafter they took him to BJRM hospital where his medical examination was conducted. The MLC of child is proved by PW9 Madan Singh and same is Ex. PW9/A. PW16 explained the condition of the child who was threatened, unable to speak and shivering and his clothes were soaked with mud. He gave him tea, biscuit and blanket. Then from the hospital boy was brought to police station Keshav Puram. The child disclosed his father's name and telephone number of his residence and his father came to him and then he came to know about FIR being registered at police station Sultan Puri. Father of child PW5 Ram Chander identified his son as Mohit. HC Narender Singh came with the father of boy and took all the documents and MLC of the child. The detailed DD entry proved by him is Ex. 16/A. STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03 PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC. :66:
55. In the cross examination at length, he explained all the circumstances and corroborated the fact that DD no. 45-B Ex. PW1/A was received at 11.05 pm. He explained that he did not record the statement of Sakaldev and Anjil. He also did not seize the clothes of the child soaked in the mud. He also did not mention these facts in DD no. 54-B Ex. PW16/A. He was confronted but this does not tentamount to any improvement and the fact proved that how he conducted the proceedings and got recovered the abandoned child and called his father. The testimony of this witness is also corroborated by PW5 Ram Chander as well about the recovery of child and called him in the police station. PW5 Ram Chander has stated that at about 2.30 am on 06.03.03 he received telephone call from Police station Keshav Puram and then he went to police station Sultan Puri first and then with a police official went to Police station Keshav Puram and brought his son back.
STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03 PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC. :67:
56. Prosecution case does not gets effected by the non joining of both public witnesses Sakaldev and Anjil and also HC Narender Singh who came with the father of child. PW16's version is believable and spells out the correct facts in which the child was recovered. PW12 Master Mohit in his cross examination also categorically deposed that after the injures caused to him by the brick, strangulation at neck, he became unconscious and police vehicle removed him to hospital and he also gave name of his father and residential telephone number to PW16 who called his father at police station Keshav Puram. I find no reason to disbelieve the version of PW16 who when went to the spot of recovery, did not know anything except that a abandoned child was found in the later hours of night. At that time he was not in the knowledge of registration of FIR at police station Sultan Puri about the kidnapping of Master Mohit. Later on he came to know these facts and recorded the same in DD no. 54-B Ex. PW16/A. The prosecution on the basis of testimony of PW1 Ct. Ram Prasad, PW9, Madan Singh (clerk, BJRM hospital) PW12 Master Mohit and PW16 ASI Sugan Lal Gora proved STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03 PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC. :68: beyond reasonable doubt that child was recovered on 05.03.03 after 11.05 pm at Lawrance Road, Keshav Puram near Shiv Mandir in anandoned condition.
57. The prosecution in order to prove the ransom call and ransom letter Ex. J-1 examined PW2 Smt. Alka, mother of kidnapped child Master Mohit. In her testimony she categorically stated that on 05.03.03 at about 10.00 am a telephone was received from accused Raju where demand of Rs. 4 lacs was made. It was attended by PW5 Ram Chand. She found letter lying near the floor of the gate. In the letter it was mentioned not to inform the police regarding demand of Rs 4 lacs. Then a neighbour Vijay took the letter to police station with her husband. She identified the letter Ex. J-1.
58. In the cross examination she was subjected to detailed explanation of the facts and she explained that she became unconscious when the letter was read over by her husband. This is a natural reaction of a mother whose 7-8 years old son has been kidnapped and the caller has STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03 PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC. :69: demanded Rs. 4 lacs. She was confronted with her statement recorded u/s 161 CrPC regarding the facts that Mohit was kidnapped on motorcycle and accused Raju gave a call. She found a letter on floor near the gate of her house. These are not the drastic improvements made by her but these are the facts in consonance with the statement of PW5 Ram Chander, her husband and father of kidnapped child. In fact a call was made for ransom as well as a letter was also received by the parents of Mohit in the presence of Vijay, a neighbour. She explained that the letter was read by her husband and Vijay was also present there and he also heard the same. It was in an envelope of white colour. PW2 Alka, mother of kidnapped child, successfully crossed the difficult bridge of cross examination and denied all the suggestions put to her by the defence counsel in this respect.
59. PW4 Vijay, neighbour, has testified that on 05.03.03 at around 10.00 am he had gone to the house of PW5 Ram Chander and met him at the gate. Then Ram Chander PW5 explained to him that he has received a STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03 PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC. :70: telephone call for Rs. 4 lacs and also showed him the letter Ex. J-1. He identified and proved the letter in the court. Thereafter he along with Ram Chander went to the police station where police officials seized that letter. Although he was cross examined by the Ld. APP for state regarding certain facts as he deposed in the court after about three years of the incident. He explained that PW5 Ram Chander told him that the voice of the caller on phone is of Raju and also identified him correctly. The letter was lying near the gate of Ram Chander's house. Wife of Ram Chander namely Smt. Alka, PW2 was also present in respect of which he corroborates each other. He further proved the seizure of the letter Ex. J-1 vide memo Ex. PW4/A.
60. In the cross examination he explained that he is employed with Ram Chander in DDA and his duty hours were also explained by him. Situation of his house is also at a distance of about 40 yards from the house of Ram Chander. He also deposed that no telephone call was received by Ram Chander in his presence. He brought into the light a fact that STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03 PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC. :71: a house was sold by Ram Chander PW5 having number 102. He also corroborated the fact that wife of Ram Chander i.e. PW2 Smt. Alka was lying unconscious in the house. He had seen the letter which was not in any envelope. He had given the correct version that letter was lying at one side of the house gate. He further explained that he reached to the police station where ASI Rajender seized the same. He also explained that he was not on visiting terms with the accused persons or talking terms with the parents of accused persons. He also explained that he did not remember the fact of seizure of letter by police but during cross examination he recalled the same. He further explained that nothing has been added or deleted in Ex. PW4/A after he had signed the same. He denied the fact that there was a quarrel between Ram Chander and family members of accused persons on dirty water in the drain. He also explained that Ram Chander did not tell him how he received the letter. He denied all the suggestions put to him by the defence counsel.
STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03 PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC. :72:
61. Analysis of testimony of this witnesses shows that he corroborates the testimony of PW2 in respect of recovery of ransom letter Ex. J-1 and thereafter he along with Ram Chander went to the police station where police officials seized the same. I find no reason to disbelieve the veracity of testimony of this witness.
62. Prosecution further examined PW5 Ram Chander, father of the kidnapped child. He testified that on 05.03.03 at about 10.00 am after five hours of his waking up, he received a call regarding custody of his son Mohit and demand of Rs. 4 lacs, whose voice he recognized to be as to accused Rajender @ Raju. The caller said to him that if Rs. 4 lacs are not paid then his son would be killed. Caller further stated to him that letter has already been sent at his house at the gate of his house. He found the letter. At that time PW4 Vijay was also standing. He disclosed the telephone call facts to him and he also saw the letter lying on the floor inside the gate. He picked up the letter and read the same regarding ransom payment of Rs. 4 lacs. He proved ransom letter Ex. J1.
STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03 PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC. :73: Thereafter along with PW4 Vijay, he went to the police station and handed over the letter to SI Rajender who sealed it in an envelope, seized the same vide memo Ex. PW4/A. He further proved the fact that in his presence handwriting of Rajender @ Raju was taken on 17 sheets mark P5-A1 to A17 and same were seized vide memo Ex. PW5/K.
63. In his cross examination he explained that he received call of ransom, after five hours of the time when he woke up. Some neighbours were present outside his house. Then PW4 Vijay also came there and inquired from his. He had gone to the police station after receiving the letter on his own and was not called by the police. He was not having any mobile phone at that time. He further corroborated the fact that he told about the ransom call to his wife. She did not become unconscious immediately but later on when he had gone to the police station she became unconscious. He did not disclose the fact of letter to any person present in the house but only disclosed it to PW4 Vijay. The sender in Ex. J1 has not written his name or address and it was not in any STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03 PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC. :74: envelope. He further corroborated the fact that it was sealed at police station. The letter was written on scaled note book paper. He was confronted with statement u/s 161 CrPC about the picking of letter but it is not a drastic improvement made by him. He denied the suggestion put to him regarding the ransom call and ransom letter. He corroborated the testimony of PW2 Smt. Alka and PW4 Vijay in respect of discovery of ransom letter Ex. J1 and thereafter seizure by PW17 ASI Rajender Prasad.
64. Another witness PW6 Ct. T. S. Tiwari is the witness of seizure of ransom letter vide memo Ex. PW4/A and also identified Ex. J1 ransom letter. He explained in the cross examination that the letter was written on only one side of the page and the other side was blank. The letter was read over by the investigation officer and then it was seized and sealed. No one had signed the letter Ex. J1. He denied that no letter was produced and seized in his presence.
STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03 PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC. :75:
65. PW17 ASI Rajender Prasad testified that on 05.03.03 Ram Chander and Vijay came to police station and handed over to him a ransom letter Ex. J1 which he seized vide memo Ex. PW4/A. In the cross examination he explained that he did not call Ram Chander and Vijay at the police station. PW6 Ct. T. S. Tiwari was also present in the police station. Thereafter he added Section 364-A IPC in the cae. He also corroborated the facts regarding the seizure of ransom letter Ex. J1.
66. During investigation the ransom letter Ex. J1 and the specimen writing of accused Rajender @ Raju were sent to handwriting expert for taking his opinion after analysis. The disputed handwriting was marked as mark Q1 and specimen handwriting of accused Rajender @ Raju was marked S1 to S17. PW18 A. K. Singh, examiner proved his report Ex. PW18/A. He has given the detailed reasons of his opinion which is Ex. PW18/B. He has testified that the questioned document mark Q1, Ex. J1 and specimen documents mark S1 to S17, Ex. PW15/D1 to PW15/D17 are STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03 PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC. :76: written by the person who wrote Ex. J1. The report of PW18 A. K. Singh further corroborates that the ransom letter Ex. J1 is written by accused Rajender @ Raju.
67. On the basis of the above detailed observation and discussion, prosecution has succeeded in proving beyond reasonable doubt that ransom letter Ex. J1 is in the handwriting of accused Rajender @ Raju.
68. The Ld. Counsel for accused persons vehemently argued that accused persons were arrested by police on 08.03.03 and they remained in the custody of police till they were shown arrested in this case. The reason for their arrest is a quarrel between the family members of accused persons and the complainant on dirty water at the drain near their houses. He pointed out that the witness examined by prosecution for arrest of accused persons are PW5 Ram Chander, PW13 Ct. Ved Prakash, PW14 Ct. Rajender Kumar and PW15 IO Insp. Kailash Chand. All these four witnesses during cross examination gave contradictory facts regarding STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03 PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC. :77: how they reached and found out all the three accused persons at S block, Mangol Puri bus stand. Therefore, the story regarding the arrest of the accused persons is demolished. He further pointed out that accused persons when arrested were having a motorcycle but the fact is that none of the accused drives the motorcycle. They are not having any driving licence and as per their personal search and body inspection memos no driving licence was recovered from them. He also drew the attention that at the time of arrest when they were driving the motorcycle, no halmet has been seized by the police. He points out that the motorcycle no. DL1SH2410 make Yamaha, black colour alleged to have been recovered from accused persons but no further investigation has been carried out regarding the registered owner of this motorcycle. Actually it belongs to one Ct. Pankaj Rana but there is no explanation given by the prosecution. He also casted doubt on the sale letter produced by one Mahesh who is alleged to be brother in law of accused Rajender @ Raju. He further submitted that pointing out memo prepared at the instance of accused persons and the STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03 PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC. :78: disclosure statements are totally in contradiction to the prosecution story and the spot of crime. He submitted that testimony of these witnesses has failed to establish that accused persons were arrested on 08.03.03 with motorcycle.
69. I have considered all the contentions of the Ld. Defence Counsel and perused the testimony of the witnesses in this regard. PW5 father of the kidnapped child namely Ram Chand testified that on 08.03.03 he saw three accused persons in the area of Mangol Puri and then he reached police station Sultan Puri at 6.00 pm and then along with two police officials and PW15 SI Kailash Chand came and then they all reached S Block, bus stand, Mangol Puri vide Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital and saw three accused persons standing at the bus stand. He proved the arrest of the accused persons and after interrogation their disclosure statements Ex. PW5/A, PW5/B and PW5/C were recorded. They also pointed out the place from where they took the kidnapped child. In cross examination by Ld. APP for state he proved the personal search memos of all the three accused STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03 PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC. :79: persons Ex. PW5/E1, PW5/F1 and PW5/G1 and seizure of memo of motorcycle vide memo Ex. PW5/H. He further proved that on his own he went to police station at about 6.10 pm and then they went on two rickshaws and remained at the spot for two hours for all investigation on that day. He denied the suggestion that he did not join investigation regarding arrest of accused persons or no disclosure statement or pointing out memo was prepared of the accused persons in his presence. He denied that a quarrel took place with his wife and family members of accused on 02.03.03 and 04.03.03 on this issue and, therefore, accused persons are falsely implicated in this case.
70. PW13Ct. Ved Prakash is another witness of arrest of accused persons, recording of their disclosure statement, pointing out memo and seizure of motorcycle Ex. P. he deposed on the similar lines of PW5 Ram Chander. In the cross examination he stated that they left in a Govt. Allwyn Nissan vehicle. He further stated that they chased them for about 4-5 hours and no helmet was recovered. After arrest of STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03 PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC. :80: the accused persons they went to house of PW5 Ram Chander. Thereafter on the instance of accused, investigation officer prepared pointing out memo and site plan and then they reached police station Sultan Puri. He denied that he did not join the investigation on 08.03.03. He further corroborated the fact that statement of Kishan Lal was also recorded in his presence. He denied all the suggestion put to him in cross examination by counsel for the accused.
71. PW14 Ct. Rajender Kumar also deposed the same facts regarding the arrest, disclosure, pointing out and seizure of motorcycle Ex. P. In the cross examination he stated that they went on foot. The two boys were sitting on the stationary motorcycle at bus terminal. He has also deposed that the accused persons were arrested at about 8.00 pm. He denied all the suggestion put to him in cross examination by counsel for the accused.
STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03 PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC. :81:
72. Ld. Counsel for accused pointed out the contradiction mentioned in the testimony of PW5 Ram Chand, PW13 Ct. Ved Prakash and PW14 Ct. Rajender Kumar. As discussed above, I do not find any material or major contradiction on the aspect of mode of reaching the place of arrest of accused persons. These witnesses are examined after huge lapse of time and interval and so these minor contradictions are bound to happen but it does not effect the prosecution case in any manner. These witnesses proved the fact that accused were arrested on 08.03.03 at 6.30 pm from S Block Bus Stand, Manglo Puri. The disclosure statements made by accused persons are not admissible as per law and whatever contents are there, these have no bearing on the prosecution case. It is pointed out that one can drive a motorcycle without driving licence also and so no recovery of driving licence has no bearing on the arrest of accused persons with motorcycle. Even one can drive a motorcycle without helmet as well. The investigation on the point of ownership of motorcycle is also not effecting the arrest of accused persons. PW15 Insp. Kailash Chander has given the STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03 PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC. :82: explanation that he did not enquire the registered owner of the recovered motorcycle although he knew that it belong to one constable of Delhi Police. He has also not recorded statement of Pankaj Rana in this respect as he had shown letter of sale of motorcycle to him by the brother in law namely Mahesh of accused Rajender @ Raju. The registration certificate was in the name of Pankaj Rana. Efforts of tracing the registered owner of motorcycle is not going to effect the prosecution case in any manner. However as per the testimony of PW16 Insp. Kailash Chander, he made enquiry and found that the motorcycle seized at the time of arrest of accused persons is showing the sale letter in the name of Mahesh, brother in law of accused Rajender @ Raju. PW15 Insp. Kailash Chander on other aspects further corroborates the testimony of above stated witnesses at he time of arrest of accused persons. He corroborates that PW5 Ram Chander, complainant came to him at the police station then he joined with Ct. Rajender and Ct. Ved Prakash who were on emergency duty. He also explained that he made departure entry at the police station. According to him they went in a STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03 PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC. :83: government vehicle Allwyn Nissan. At 6.30 pm they reached S Block Bus stand, Mangol Puri. He also stated that he took around 2 hours and 25 minutes in completing the proceedings. He did not investigate as per disclosure statements of accused persons at railway station as legally it is of no consequence. He further explained that he made efforts to join Sakaldev and Anjil Yadav in the investigation but they were not traceable.
73. On the basis of above discussed testimony of PW5 Ram Chander, PW13 Ct. Ved Prakash and PW14 Ct. Rajender Kumar, prosecution has been able to prove the accused persons were arrested on 08.03.03 at about 6.30 pm from S block bus stand, Mangol Puri and a motorcycle was also recovered from them.
74. Evidence led by accused persons in their defence is of no help to them. DW-1 has deposed that all three accused persons were lifted by the police and were made to STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03 PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC. :84: sit in the police station and were later on falsely implicated in this case at the instance of PW5 Ram Chander. It is pertinent to mention her that no family member of accused persons came forward to depose in this regard before the court or they never made any complaint to senior police officials or before the court regarding the detention and false implication of accused persons in this case. Hence the statement made by DW1 Prem Nath cannot be believed as the same is not cogent and trustworthy and it seems that DW1 Prem Nath has put forward a simple plea of defence without any substance in it.
75. In view of the above discussion and observation, it has been proved by prosecution beyond reasonable doubt through the cogent, coherent and truthful version of prosecution witnesses that all three accused persons in furtherance of their common intention kidnapped PW12 Master Mohit from the lawful guardianship of his parents, demanded a ransom of Rs. 4 lacs on 04.03.03 from near his STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03 PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC. :85: house. Prosecution has further been able to prove that the accused persons on 05.03.03 made a ransom call at the house of father of kidnapped child and also got a ransom letter dropped at the door of PW5 Ram Chander, father of kidnapped child. It has further been proved by prosecution beyond reasonable doubt that accused tried to strangulate the kidnapped child, hit him with a brick on his head and threw him in the nala near Shiv Mandir, Lawrance Road, near Shiv Mandir from where he was recovered. Prosecution further proved the arrest of accused persons on 08.03.03 from S Block Bus Stand, Mangol Puri in the presence and at the instance of complainant PW5 Ram Chander.
76. In view of the above discussion and observation, prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that all the three accused persons committed offence punishable u/s 364-A/307/34 IPC in furtherance of their common intention. All three accused persons namely Rajender @ Raju, Sanjeev @ Bahua and Riazuddin @ Riyaz STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03 PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC. :86: are convicted for commission of offence punishable u/s 364- A/307/34 IPC. Accused persons be now heard on the point of sentence.
Announced in the open court (SANJAY KUMAR) today i.e. 29.01.2011 ASJ-01 (NW),ROHINI COURTS: DELHI.
STATE VS RAJENDER ETC.//FIR NO. 213/03 PSSULTAN PURI//U/S. 364A/307/34 IPC.