Delhi District Court
State vs . Ramesh @ Puran Singh on 21 January, 2012
IN THE COURT OF MS. NAMRITA AGGARWAL
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, SOUTH DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
STATE Vs. Ramesh @ Puran Singh
FIR No.: 548/97
U/s. : 363/365/506/342/323/34 IPC
P.S. : Vasant Vihar
JUDGMENT :
1. Sl. No of the case :158/1
2. Date of the commission of the offence : 17.12.1997
3. Name of the complainant : Sh. Ram Bihari Shukla S/o Sh. Ram Prasad Shukla R/o 327A/4, Munirka Village, New Delhi.
4. Name of the accused : (1) Ramesh @ Puran Singh S/o Sh. Mukandi Lal R/o House No. 329 Budh Vihar, Munirka Village.
(2) Anil @ Rinku S/o Sh. Puran Singh R/o House No. 329 Budh Vihar, Munirka Village.
(3) Smt. Maya
W/o Sh. Puran Singh
R/o House No. 329 Budh
Vihar, Munirka Village.
FIR No. 548/97 1/10
(4) Jagan Nath
S/o Sh. Mukandi Lal
R/o House No. 329 Budh
Vihar, Munirka Village.
5. Offence complained of or proved : U/s.63/365/506/342/323/34
IPC
6. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
7. Final order : Acquitted
8. Date of reservation of order : 18.01.2012
9. Date of such order : 21.01.2012
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1. The facts of the case as alleged by the complainant Sh. Ram Bihari Shukla vide his complaint Ex.PW5/A are that on 17.12.1997 at about 11.30 a.m. from Super Watch Service opposite Canara Bank, Munirka Village, New Delhi the accused persons, namely, Anil, Jagan Nath, Ramesh and Maya kidnapped his son Kripa Shankar from his lawful guardianship without his consent. Further, they wrongfully restrained him and give beatings to him.
2. FIR was got recorded and police started the investigation. Charge U/S 363/365/506/342/323/34 IPC was framed against the accused Sunder, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The story of the prosecution is that on 17.12.1997 Kripa Shankar FIR No. 548/97 2/10 had gone to Super Watch Service Shop for his normal work. When he did not return home till 08.30 p.m., his father Mr. Ram Bihari Shukla got worried and went to the shop to find out his whereabouts. He came to know that two persons had come to meet Kripa Shankar at about 10.30 a.m. and thereafter Kripa Shankar left the shop with them. The complainant made a statement to the police upon which FIR was registered and the police started investigation. During investigation, accused Anil and Ramesh made an application before the court to surrender. Both of them were arrested and interrogated. After that complainant produced Kripa Shankar before the police on 24.12.1997. He was medically examined and his statement was recorded under section 164 Cr. PC before the Ld. Magistrate. In his statement under section 164 Cr. PC, Kripa Shankar stated that on the date of incident, Ramesh and Rinku came to the shop where he used to work and asked him to accompany them. Then, he refused to accompany the accused persons, they forcibly took him on a two wheeler scooter to a house behind a temple. There two other persons were also present and they all started beating him with helmet and stones. Rinku gave him fists and blows as well. Then, he was taken to Ramesh' house where he was beaten with lathi due to FIR No. 548/97 3/10 which his nose started bleeding. Later, Kripa Shankar ran away from the spot and went to railway station from there he went to Ludhiana. From Ludhiana, his uncle brought him back to Delhi on 23.12.1997.
4. Prosecution examined eight witnesses in its support. Complainant Mr. Ram Bihari Shukla was examined as PW 5. PW5 turned hostile during his examination and refused to identify the accused persons in the court. He further stated that he was not told about the description of the said accused persons by the owner of the shop. He was crossexamined by the Ld. APP for the State wherein he refused that the shopkeeper had told him that one bald headed man aged about 40 to 50 years had come along with one more person and had taken away his son on the scooter. When he was confronted with the statement under section 161 Cr. PC, he stated that he had signed some blank papers at the instance of the police.
5. The kidnapped boy Kripa Shankar was examined as PW6 and he also turned hostile during his examination. He stated that on the date of incident, accused Ramesh and Anil came to the shop where he used to work as a helper and asked him about his friends with whom he used to sit. When he refused to give them their names, they slapped him and went away. He further stated that due to this, he FIR No. 548/97 4/10 got scared and immediately went to the railway station to go to his native place Lukhnow. Thereafter, when he narrated the whole story to his maternal uncle, he brought him back to Delhi and then he was produced before the police. He said that the statement which he made before the Magistrate was at the instance of the police and he only said whatever was told to him by the police. Ld. APP for the State crossexamined him wherein he refused that the accused persons had forcibly taken him on their scooter in a room behind Budh Mandir where one more person was present. He further refused that he was given any beating by the accused person or was taken to the house of Ramesh where the wife of the accused Ramesh also gave him beating with lathi. He further refused that he escaped from the place of incident and that he made a statement before the Ld. Magistrate voluntarily on his own. He said that he was tutored by the police to make the said statement.
6. SI Raj Kumar was examined as PW1. He stated that on 24.07.1998, he was posted at PS Vasant Vihar wherein he received FIR No. 548/1997 which was earlier investigated by SI Rajeev Kumar. In his presence, on 17.03.1999, an application for surrender was made by accused Maya. He interrogated Maya and arrested her. Thereafter, FIR No. 548/97 5/10 on 21.07.1999, an application for surrender was made by accused Jagan Nath. He interrogated Jagan Nath and arrested him. On completion of investigation, he prepared the challan and submitted thus same in the court.
7. Smt. Mamta Taneja was examined as PW2. She stated that she had not given any statement to the police nor she knew anything about the case. She was crossexamined by Ld. APP for the State. She refused that she used to reside at the house of Ramesh or that on that date of incident Ramesh, Maya, Jagan Nath and Anil had brought a boy named Kripa Shanakar to their residence and gave beatings to him. She further stated that she did not made any statement to the police that when she returned back from the school of her children she found that Kripa Shankar was not present in the house of Ramesh and Maya was cleaning the floor.
8. Dr. A. Malik was examined as PW3. He stated that on 23.12.1997 he was working as casualty medical officer at Safdarjung Hospital and he prepared MLC No. 5819 Ex. PW3/A of Kripa Shankar wherein he opine the nature of his injuries to be simple and caused by a blunt instrument. Duty officer HC Rajender Kumar was examined as PW4 who stated that on receipt of rukka he recorded the FIR the copy of FIR No. 548/97 6/10 which is exhibited as Ex. PW4/A.
9. Inspector Rajeev Kumar was examined as PW7. He stated that on receipt of DD No. 34A, he reached the residence of complainant Ram Bihari Shukla wherein HC Ramesh and Ct. Sanjeev were present. He recorded the statement of the complainant and sent it through Ct. Sanjeev for registration of FIR. During the investigation when he was making efforts to trace Kripa Shankar, accused Anil@Rinku and Ramesh made an application to surrender before the court. He interrogated and arrested both the accused persons. Later, when Kripa Shankar was produced by the complainant in the police station, he was got medically examined by him and his custody was given to his father vide memo Ex. PW7C. Thereafter, he made an application under section 164 Cr. PC Ex. PW7/D to get the statement of Kripa Shankar recorded before the Magistrate which is exhibited as Ex. PW6/A. Later, he had to go for training to Chandigarh due to which he handed over the case file to MHCR PS Vasant Vihar. In his crossexamination, he denied that since his complaint was made to DCP vigilance by the accused persons, the present investigation was taken from him. He further denied that he made a false case against the accused persons or that he made the FIR No. 548/97 7/10 complainant sign some blank papers and later on wrote false statements upon it to implicated the accused persons. He further denied that he had pressurised Kripa Shankar to make false statements against the accused persons as he had grudge against them.
10.The owner of Super Watch Service Centre where Kripa Shankar used to work as a helper, was examined as PW8. He stated that on the date of incident, Kripa Shankar told him that he was going outside the shop for some work and thereafter he did not return back.
11.At request of the Ld. APP for the State, the prosecution evidence was closed and the matter was listed for statement of the accused persons.
12.The accused persons denied all the incriminating evidence put to them in their statement U/S 313 Cr.P.C stating that they are wrong and pleaded innocence. The main defence taken by the accused persons was that they have been falsely implicated in the case.
13.Since, the accused did not lead any defence evidence, the matter was fixed for final arguments. Final arguments were heard.
14. The accused persons have been charged u/s FIR No. 548/97 8/10 363/365/506/342/323/34 IPC. The main ingredient of section 363 IPC is that the kidnapped child is taken out of the lawful guardianship of his parents without their consent. In the present case, earlier it was contended by the complainant and the kidnapped boy that all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention kidnapped him and later on gave beatings to him. A statement to this effect was also made by Kripa Shankar before the Ld. MM. However, during prosecution evidence, Kripa Shankar as well as complainant Sh. Ram Bihari Shukla turned hostile and made an altogether different statement. Kripa Shankar stated in his evidence that he had gone to Luknow at his own will and nobody had kidnapped him or beaten him. He even refused to identify the accused persons who were present in the court then. His father Ram Bihari Shukla also refused to identify the accused persons. Further, the owner of the shop, where Kripa Shankar used to work also stated in his examination that Kripa Shankar had gone out of the shop on the date of incident at his own will and did not mention the accused persons even once in his statement. The lady who used to reside as a tenant in the house of accused Ramesh also turned hostile and refused to support the case of prosecution. FIR No. 548/97 9/10
15.No iota of evidence was received against the accused persons in the statements made by the above stated witnesses who turned hostile. Further, Kripa Shankar stated that he was pressurised and tutored by the police to state what he had stated in his statement before the Ld. Magistrate under section 164 Cr. PC.
16.Thus, keeping in view, the above stated facts and circumstances, prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused persons Ramesh, Anil, Jagan Nath and Maya. Hence, all the accused persons are acquitted of offence under section 363/365/506/342/323/34 IPC. Their bail bonds and sureties be extended for a period of six months under section 437A Cr. PC. Documents be returned as per rules and procedure. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court (NAMRITA AGGARWAL)
on 21.01.2012 METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
SOUTH DISTRICT/SAKET COURTS
NEW DELHI
FIR No. 548/97 10/10
F.I.R. No.: 400/10
U/s 354/380/511 IPC
P.S. Vasant Vihar
13.01.2012
Pr: Ld. APP for the State.
Accused is present in person along with LAC Ms. Shimla Tomar. Vide separate order, accused is convicted for offence u/s 454/511 IPC. Argument on the point of sentence heard.
Vide separate order, order on sentence passed. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
(Namrita Aggarwal) MMSD/Delhi/07.01.2012 FIR No. 548/97 11/10