Delhi District Court
State vs Accused on 3 April, 2012
IN THE COURT OF DR. T.R. NAVAL,ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-02,EAST DISTRICT,KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI SC NO.20/10 Date of Institution :26.02.2010 FIR No.129/07 Date of Argument :24.03.2012 PS Krishna Nagar Date of Order :03.04.2012 U/S 365/364A/343/120B IPC State Versus Accused 1 Mohd. Imran @ Shiva S/o Sh. Risalat Hussain R/o 101/290, Karnal Colony Kanpur, UP. (Proclaimed Offender) 2 Puran @ Shankar S/o Sh. Rambali R/o Village Pipri Pura PS Bhurthana Distt. Etah, U.P. 3 Hari Om S/o Sh. Din Dayal R/o Village Pipri Pura PS Bhurthana Distt. Etah, U.P. 4 Dharmender @ Dharmu S/o Sh. Ram Niwas R/o H.No.530, Kanti Nagar West Delhi. P. Add. Vill. Kurela PS Ahamdabad, Farukhabad U.P. 5 Smt. Rani @ Manju W/o Sh. Dharmender R/o H.No.530, Kanti Nagar West Delhi. P. Add. - Vill. Kurela PS Ahamdabad, Farukhabad U.P. SC No.20/10 State Vs. Imran @ Shiva & Ors. Page 1/47 6. Satyawan Katheria S/o Sh. Din Dayal R/o Village Sikandarpur PS Main Puri, Kotwali, Distt. Mainpuri, U.P. 7. Smt. Reshma W/o Sh. Satyanarayan Katheria R/o Village Sikandarpur PS Main Puri, Kotwali, Distt. Mainpuri, U.P. JUDGMENT
The prosecution case in brief is that on 20.3.2007 accused Mohd. Imran @ Shiva, Puran @ Shankar, Hari Om, Dharmender @ Dharmu, Smt. Rani @ Manju, Satyawan Katheria and Smt. Reshma hatched a criminal conspiracy and abducted a child Chirag @ Chinki from the guardianship of his father Pankaj Jain complainant. They secretly confined him in Village Sikandarpur, Dist. Mainpuri, U.P. for a period of three days and made telephonic call for ransom to his father Pankaj Jain and gave a reasonable apprehension that Chirag @ Chinki may be put to death if demand of ransom of Rs.70 lakhs for release of his child Chirag @ Chinki was not fulfilled. The matter was reported to the police and a DD entry No. 49B was recorded on 20.03.2007. Police recorded statement of Sh. Pankaj Jain wherein he disclosed that on SC No.20/10 State Vs. Imran @ Shiva & Ors. Page 2/47 that day at about 7.30 p.m., his son Chirag @ Chinki aged about 3-1/2 years was weeping and he asked his helper Akash aged about 14-15 years to take the child Chirag @ Chinki and buy a chocolate for him. He handed over Rs.10/- to him. After about 10 minutes, Akash returned and asked as to what else was to be purchased by him. He also disclosed that a lean and thin blackish (sawla) colour boy met him at a corner of gali No. 4 and he handed over Rs. 10/- and told that Pankaj Jain sent him to bring papdi poori. He also took Chirag in his lap. When they arrived they found the child missing and that man disappeared. At about 9/10 p.m., he received a telephonic call on his mobile No. 9213285013 and he was informed that his son was already taken out of Delhi. He was asked to arrange Rs.70 lakhs. On the basis of that FIR of present case was recorded. Site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared. Akash was taken to the office of Crime Record Bureau where sketch of that boy was prepared. Hue and cry notice was also circulated but the child could not be traced. The telephone was put on surveillance. It revealed that telephonic call was initially received from Bhopura. Telephonic conversation was also got recorded. A raiding party was formed and deputed to Itawa, U.P. and that was keeping watch on STD/PCO Booths. Accused Mohd. Imran @ Shiva was apprehended on 23.03.2007 when he was SC No.20/10 State Vs. Imran @ Shiva & Ors. Page 3/47 coming out after making call from STD/PCO booth of one Sh. Ahzaz Ahmad. He was interrogated. His disclosure statement was recorded. IO also made enquiries from Ahzaz Ahmad and seized the receipts of the STD calls vide seizure memo. He disclosed that he came in contact with Puran and Hari Om, who were living in Itawa. His sister Manju @ Rani was working in West Kanti Nagar, Delhi. Dharmender @ Dharmu is brother-in-law (jija) of Hari Om. He and Manju @ Rani told that Pankaj Jain has enough money and he has only son Chirag @ Chinki. They discussed plan to kidnapped the child. Thereafter he disclosed that Puran @ Shankar was available in Village Sikandarpur alongwith Hari Om and Puran and he could get the child recovered from there possession. Police arrived at Village Sikandarpur where Reshma met him who disclosed that child was at another house. Police raided another house and recovered the son from the possession of Hari Om and Puran. Accused Satyawan was also available in that house. All of them were arrested and interrogated. Their disclosure statements were recorded. They were arrested, their personal search memo and arrest memo were prepared. They were brought to Delhi. Accused Dharmender and Rani @ Manju were also arrested on 24.3.2007. Their arrest memo and personal search memo were prepared. Abducted child was released to his parents SC No.20/10 State Vs. Imran @ Shiva & Ors. Page 4/47 vide separate memo Fard Hawalgi. Police also took the sample voice of accused Imran @ Shiva and Manju @ Rani and those were sent for comparison alongwith tape recorded conversation. Police after medical examination of accused persons, recording statements of witnesses, collecting the report from CFSL and on completion of investigation filed the charge sheet against abovesaid accused persons for their trial for the offences punishable u/s 364A/506/34/120B IPC.
2. My Ld. Predecessor vide his order dated 07.9.2007 opined that there was a prima facie case against the accused persons for framing the charge punishable u/s 365/364A/343/120B IPC, therefore, a common charge against all the accused for the said offences was framed and read over to them and they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case examined Sh. Pankaj Jain, father of the abducted child as PW1; Sh. Sushil Jain, brother-in-law (Jija) of Sh. Pankaj Jain as PW2; Sh. Tek Ram constable as PW3; Sh. Harish Chand Sharma as PW4; Ct. Jitender as PW5; HC Maya as PW6; ASI Ram Prakash as PW7; Akash, helper of the complainant as PW8; Ahzaz Ahmed, owner of PCO Booth as PW9; M.N. SC No.20/10 State Vs. Imran @ Shiva & Ors. Page 5/47 Vijayan, Nodal Officer of Tata Tele Services Ltd. as PW10; HC Vijender Tyagi as PW11; HC Sushil Kumar as PW12; HC Vijay Shankar as PW13; Ct. Lalitesh Gautam as PW14; HC Pratap Singh as PW15; HC Dharamvir Singh as PW16; ASI Ram Kishan as PW17; Insp. Anil Sharma as PW18; Dr. D.K. Tanwar, Senior Scientific Officer as PW19; A.D. Tiwari another Senior Scientific Officer as PW20; Insp. Rajender Gautam as PW21; HC Veer Sen as PW22; ASI Bindu as PW23; Vishal Gaurav, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Limited as PW24; ASI Madan Singh as PW25; SI Vinay Yadav as PW26; Ct. Jaibir Singh as PW27; HC Anil Tyagi as PW28; SI J.K. Singh as PW29; Israr Babu, Alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone Essar Mobile Service Ltd. as PW30 and Vinu T. Abrahim, Scientific Asst., CFSL, CBI as PW31.
4. After closing of prosecution evidence statements of all the accused persons were recorded u/s 313 Cr. P.C. All the accused persons either denied the prosecution evidence or expressed their ignorance about the same. Accused pleaded that they were innocent. All of them opted not to lead any evidence.
5. I have heard arguments of Ld. Counsels for the parties and perused file including written arguments.
SC No.20/10 State Vs. Imran @ Shiva & Ors. Page 6/476. On perusal of charge sheet and other documents, on examination and analyzing of evidence on record and on considering the arguments of Ld. Defence Counsels and Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor, I have formed my opinions and that are discussed herein below:
7. In a case Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati v CBI, 2003 SCC (Cri) 1121, it was held that to bring home the charge of conspiracy within the ambit of section 120-B, it is necessary to establish that there was an agreement between the parties for doing an unlawful act. It was also held therein that it was difficult to establish conspiracy by direct evidence.
8. In order to prove its case against accused for the offence of kidnapping and abducting with an intention to cause secretly and wrongfully confined a person punishable u/s 365 IPC, the prosecution has to prove that accused persons kidnapped or abducted child Chirag @ Chinki and that kidnapping and abduction was with the intention to confine him secretly and wrongfully.
9. In order to confine accused persons for the offence of kidnapping for ransom, etc. punishable u/s 364- A IPC, the prosecution has further to prove that all the SC No.20/10 State Vs. Imran @ Shiva & Ors. Page 7/47 accused persons, to achieve the object of criminal conspiracy kidnapped or abducted child Chirag @ Chinki from the legal guardianship of his father Sh. Pankaj Jain, PW1 and threatened him to cause death or hurt to child Chirag @ Chinki or by their conduct gave rise to a reasonable apprehension that child Chirag @ Chinki may be put to death or hurt and that kidnapping and abduction was to compel Sh. Pankaj Jain to pay him a sum of ransom.
10. The prosecution in order to prove its case, for the offence of wrongful confinement for three or more days punishable u/s 343 IPC, has to prove that accused persons confined child Chirag @ Chinki for three days or more. Let us examine the prosecution evidence on this aspect.
11. PW1 Pankaj Jain, inter alia, stated that on 20.03.2007 at about 7:30 p.m. his son Chirag @ Chinki was weeping so he asked his employee Akash to take Chirag @ Chinki to market and get toffee to him. He paid a sum of Rs.10/- to Akash for that purpose. Akash, after some time returned without Chirag @ Chinki and asked him that a person who was uttering name of Pankaj gave a currency note of Rs.10/- denomination and asked him to bring pani- puri. When he inquired about the child Chirag @ Chinki, Akash disclosed that, that person who was lean and thin SC No.20/10 State Vs. Imran @ Shiva & Ors. Page 8/47 took child Chirag @ Chinki. When they returned at the place where Akash handed over child Chirag @ Chinki to that unknown person, they found that child and that person were not there. They searched Chirag @ Chinki here and there in the locality and gave a telephonic call to PCR. Within 10 minutes police arrived at the spot. At about 9 p.m., he received a telephonic call on his mobile phone no.9213285013 that he should arrange a sum of Rs.70 lacs for release of his son. At that time he was present in P.S. He disclosed this fact to the police official. Police official noted the number from where the mobile phone was dialed. He lodged his report Ex.PW1/A. Police came into action and came to know that call on his mobile phone was made from Bhopura, Ghaziabad. Next day police reached there. Abductor again gave a telephonic call on his mobile phone and he told him that he was arranging the money. Abductor also made a call to him in the evening and on the next date and inquired whether he could arrange the money. He replied that he was arranging the money. He was informed that they (abductor) had come to know that matter had been reported to the police so they had chopped both thumbs of his son and that his son would be thrown in forest of Madhya Pradesh. Abductor set the time limit up to Friday. When he showed his inability to arrange a sum of Rs.70 lacs, the abductor told that he should forget SC No.20/10 State Vs. Imran @ Shiva & Ors. Page 9/47 his son. At that time abductor demanded a sum of Rs.15 lacs as ransom and he asked that he should bring the said ransom in currency notes in denomination of Rs.1,000/- by keeping it in a cloth piece and told him that his son would be return after 8 hours and if he made all the payment of Rs.70 lacs his son would be returned then and there. Abductor also asked him to arrange a vehicle and told him that one old lady would meet him and that she would show a currency note of Rs.10/-. He gave number of that currency note to him in advance and told that on verifying the number of currency note he should made the payment to that lady who was not aware about anything and her arrest would be a futile exercise. Abductor called him at Tonga Stand at Kanpur and fixed time till Friday of that week. He narrated all these facts to the police. On 24.03.2007 at about 6:30 or 7 a.m. his son Chirag @ Chinki was brought to Delhi by police. Sushil Jain, his elder brother in law (Jija) had gone with police for recovery. He was having another mobile 9212751277. That number was also given to the police and he had also requested the police vide his application Ex.PW1/B to put the aforesaid number under surveillance. On 21/22.03.2007 Dharmender @ Dharmu, his employee was arrested by police. His wife, known to him was also in police custody. He identified accused Dharmender & his wife.
SC No.20/10 State Vs. Imran @ Shiva & Ors. Page 10/4712. PW2 Sh. Sushil Jain, inter alia, deposed that Sh. Pankaj Jain was his brother in law (sala). On 20.03.2007 Pankaj Jain gave him a telephonic call at 7 or 7:30 p.m. and informed him that his son Chirag @ Chinki was abducted by someone. He went to PS Krishna Nagar where Pankaj Jain was present and he lodged his report. On 21.03.2007 he joined the investigation headed by Inspector Anil Sharma. A reading team consisting of six police officials besides him was formed and they went to Itawa city. Police checked 3-4 STD booth and one another STD booth near bus stand Itawa owned by a muslim gentleman. Accused Imran present in the court was over powered from there when he was talking to Pankaj Jain on his mobile phone at Delhi. He was interrogated and he disclosed that he could get the child recovered from village Sikanderpur. He disclosed that police party should proceed to village Sikandarpur otherwise the offender would leave that place to some unknown destination alongwith child. They went to village Sikandarpur in house of Satyawan. He and his wife Reshma was present there and he identified both of them. Accused Imran led the police party to some other house in that village. That house was bolted from inside. Inspector Anil Sharma scaled the wall and opened the bolt. Two boys were sleeping in the caught and they had got Chirag @ SC No.20/10 State Vs. Imran @ Shiva & Ors. Page 11/47 Chinki between his legs. Accused Hari Om and Puran kept the child between their legs. He identified both of them. Chirag @ Chinki was taken into police custody. Accused Puran & Hari Om arrested. Memo Ex.PW2/A was prepared. The assistance of local police PS Mainpuri was taken.
13. PW-8 Akash corroborated the testimony of PW1 by deposing that he was working in the factory of Sh. Pankaj Jain. On 20.3.2007 at about 4.30 p.m. Pankaj Jain gave him a note of Rs.10/- and directed him to bring pani papri. He lifted Chirag in his lap and went to a shop for purchasing eatable. He gave a chocolate to Chirag. A person who was wearing opticles came and directed him to fetch papdi and he took Chirag in his lap while uttering the name of father of Chirag. He also told that he would take care of the child. He purchased papdi and delivered the same to Pankaj who told him that he did not ask him to fetch papdi and he enquired about child Chirag. He replied that a thin structure fellow, wearing red trouser and T-shirt and he was of shallow colour who could be identified had taken Chirag by saying that he would hand over Chirag to Pankaj Jain.
14. PW-18 Insp. Anil Sharma, inter alia, stated that on 21.3.2007 he was posted as Additional SHO in P.S. SC No.20/10 State Vs. Imran @ Shiva & Ors. Page 12/47 Krishna Nagar. The present case was being investigated by Insp. Rajender Gautam, the then Inspector Investigation. It revealed during investigation that ransom call from the location of Itawa was received on the mobile of the complainant. In view of that information and on the direction of Sr. Police Officers a raiding party consisting him, SI J.K. Singh, HC Vijay Shankar and Sushil Jain was constituted. They proceeded for Itawa in a private vehicle. On 22.3.2007 they arrived at Itawa. He received a phone call from Delhi that a phone call was received on the number of complainant from No.05688-251271 regarding the settlement of ransom. They verified the said phone from local contacts and tried to trace out the PCO booth. That was found situated near old bus stand, Itawa in the name of Kamlesh Telecom. They arrived there and found a girl aged about 12-13 years sitting and on enquiry she disclosed that one boy aged about 27-28 years wearing spectacles came just before his arrival and that boy paid Rs. 40/- against call charges of Rs.27.74p. On 23.3.2007 at about 7.45 p.m. he again received a call from IO from Delhi who told him that at about 7.45 p.m., a ransom call was received on his phone No. 9213285013 by the caller from telephone bearing No. 05688-251072. That telephone number was related to Hello Telecom on railway road, Itawa and the owner of said PCO booth was Ahzaz Ahmad.
SC No.20/10 State Vs. Imran @ Shiva & Ors. Page 13/47He verified these booths on 21.03.2007. PCO booth was owned by Ahzaz Ahmad. When he entered the said Hello Telecom Booth Ahzaz Ahmad told him that the boy who just left the booth had made the telephone call. The investigating team immediately chased and apprehended him. On enquiry his name revealed as Imran @ Shiva. His physique and structure told by the girl from Kamlesh Telecom, Itawa as well as description told by the IO were in his mind. He took casual search of said boy Imran @ Shiva and three telephone PCO Booth bill/slips were recovered from his possession. Out of them two booth slips were related to Hello Telecom Itawa and another was related to Kamlesh Telecom, Itawa. Rs.170/- cash in the denomination of Rs. 10/- were recovered from him. He also disclosed a specific currency note of Rs.10/- which was to be used for the purpose of ransom. Thereafter, he was arrested and his arrest memo EX.PW13/A was prepared. His personal search was conducted vide memo EX.PW13/B. The said note of Rs. 10/- denomination was kept in an envelope and it was sealed with the seal of AS. The denomination of said note was 90B026448. He interrogated accused Imran at length and recorded his disclosure statement vide memo EX.PW13/C. In pursuance of disclosure statement of accused Imran @ Shiva, he alongwith his team proceeded for Village Sikandarpur, Mainpuri. Firstly, they went to local SC No.20/10 State Vs. Imran @ Shiva & Ors. Page 14/47 police station Civil Line, Mainpuri and took assistance of local police and then reached to Village Sikandarpur. Accused Imran @ Shiva led them to a house where one lady alongwith small baby came. During enquiry her name was revealed as Reshma w/o Satyavan. She also disclosed that kidnapped boy was kept in another house which was situated near her house. Said lady Reshma led them to that house which was found bolted from inside. Thereafter, he and other police official jumped over the said wall and saw that one cot was lying in the courtyard and someone was sleeping, covering with the bed sheet and on removing the bed sheet two persons were found sleeping on the said cot and one boy aged 3 years was lying between both of them. Police officials, the accused and Sushil Jain were also entered into the house. Sh. Sushil Jain identified said boy as kidnapped boy. One person came from the room and it revealed that his name was Satyavan. On enquiry other two accused disclosed their name as Puran and Hari Om. He arrested all the three accused as well as Reshma vide arrest memo EX.PW13/E, EX.PW13/F, EX.PW13/G and EX.PW13/H bearing his signature at point B and conducted their personal search vide memo EX.PW13/E1, EX.PW13/F1, EX.PW13/G1 and EX.PW13/H1. He interrogated all the accused persons and recorded their disclosure statements vide memo EX.PW13/K, EX.PW13/L, EX.PW13/J and SC No.20/10 State Vs. Imran @ Shiva & Ors. Page 15/47 EX.PW13/M. He prepared recovery memo EX.PW2/A of the boy. All the documents were signed by him at pint B. At the time of arrest of accused Imran @ Shiva three slips/bill of STD booths were recovered. Those were taken into possession vide memo EX.PW13/D. Thereafter, they left for Delhi leaving local police at the spot. Accused Imran @ Shiva pointed out the STD booth at Bhopura, Delhi-U.P., border from where he made first ransom call. The said PCO booth was being run in the name and style of Prakash ka PCO (Khoka) having No. 01202892051. He prepared pointing out memo EX.PW18/A. On reaching at P.S. Krishna Nagar the kidnapped/recovered boy Chirag was handed over to his father and mother vide memo EX.PW13/N and accused persons were handed over to regular IO for further proceedings. He recorded statements of all the witnesses who accompanied him to Itawa. He deposited personal search property in malkhana. He identified in the court accused persons Reshma, Satyavan, Puran and Hari Om correctly.
15. PW9 corroborated the statement of PW18 by deposing that he owned PCO Booth in the name and style of Lovely Hello at Station Road, Itawa. In the year 2007 one person was talking from his STD booth. Officials of Delhi police came there and overpowered him. Police obtained a SC No.20/10 State Vs. Imran @ Shiva & Ors. Page 16/47 call bill consisting call made by that person. Telephone No. of his STB booth was 05688-251072.
16. PW13 also supported the prosecution case and statement of PW18. He inter alia stated that on 21.3.2012 he had joined the investigation and he had gone to Itawa, U.P. with SI J.K. Singh, Insp. Anil Sharma and Sushil Jain. Pankaj Jain, father of kidnapped child was receiving telephone call for ransom from telephone No. 05688251072. On reaching Itawa they found that it was in the name of Ahzaz Ahmad. Insp. Anil Sharma interrogated Ahzaz Ahmad on 21.3.2007. He disclosed that on previous day telephone call was made from his booth by a person having shallow complexion and tall body wearing goggles and that person had made telephone call to telephone No. 9213285013. PW13 made statement, on the lines of Insp. Anil Sharma. He also stated that accused Imran @ Shiva was apprehended from the STD booth of Ahzaz Ahmad and he had made the disclosure statement and led the police party to Village Sikandarpur from where kidnapped boy was recovered. He also identified his signatures on all the memo referred in the statement of PW18 Insp. Anil Sharma at point X.
17. PW29 SI J.K. Singh also corroborated the SC No.20/10 State Vs. Imran @ Shiva & Ors. Page 17/47 statement of Insp. Anil Sharma and he deposed on the same lines. He also stated that on 21.3.2007 he went to Itawa, U.P. alongwith IO Insp. Anil Sharma, HC Vijay Shankar and Sushil Jain. They arrived there on 22.3.2007. IO had ascertained STD/PCO booth and came to know that same was belonging to Ahzaz Ahmad. They were keeping vigilance on the booths of Ahzaz Ahmad and booth of Kamlesh Telecom Centre. On 23.7.2007 IO had received an information from Delhi that a ransom call was received from STD booth of Ahzaz Ahmad. They had immediately arrived at STD booth of Ahzaz Ahmad and apprehended a boy whose name was subsequently revealed as Imran @ Shiva. On his search bills/receipts of PCO booth were recovered, besides, Rs. 170/- from his possession. He also disclosed that child Chirag was at Village Sikandarpur at the house of Satyavan and Reshma. His disclosure statement was recorded. Thereafter, they had gone to P.S. civil Lines and after taking aid of local police they arrived at Village Sikandarpur. Accused Imran @ Shiva led them to the house of Satyavan where a lady named Reshma was found, having a child. On interrogation she disclosed that kidnapped child Chirag was in another house. She had taken them to that house. The door of that house was bolted. IO and another police officer, after climbing over the wall, opened the door. They found that two persons SC No.20/10 State Vs. Imran @ Shiva & Ors. Page 18/47 were sleeping in the courtyard wearing bed sheets and the child was in between their legs. Accused Puran and Hari Om were apprehended. Accused Satyavan also came out of the room. He was also apprehended. Child was taken into possession. Accused Shiva also pointed out PCO booth of Kamlesh. He also identified all the accused persons Satyavan, Hari Om, Puran and Reshma correctly in the court.
18. PW11 deposed that on 24.03.2007 he was posted at PS Krishna Nagar and he had joined the investigation of this case at the direction of Inspector Rajender. He had gone to the house of accused Dharmender @ Dharmu located at West Kanti Nagar on instruction by Inspector Rajender. He disclosed that he alongwith Shankar, Imran, his brother in law and his wife namely Manju had kidnapped son of Sh. Pankaj Jain and his disclosure statement Ex.PW11/A was recorded. In the meantime accused Manju wife of accused Dharmender @ Dharmu was also brought by lady Ct. Maya and she was interrogated. Both of them were arrested and their arrest memo Ex.PW11/B and Ex.PW6/B, respectively, were prepared. He also identified his signatures on these memos at point A and also on the disclosure statement of Manju Ex.PW11/D. SC No.20/10 State Vs. Imran @ Shiva & Ors. Page 19/47
19. Lady Constable PW14 corroborated his statement by deposing that she had conducted personal search of accused Rani @ Manju at PS Krishna Nagar and signed the personal search memo Ex.PW6/B at point X.
20. PW28 HC Anil Tyagi deposed that on 21.03.2007 he joined investigation with IO of PS Krishna Nagar at the instructions of senior officer and he remained with IO for investigation up to 24.03.2007. During investigation he remained in touch with complainant Pankaj Jain. His senior officer assigned the work to him to boost up the moral of Pankaj Jain and pass on each and every information to other police officials which were received on mobile phone of Pankaj Jain. On 23.03.2007 Pankaj Jain received a telephonic call on his mobile from Itawa from phone number 5688 251072. After attending the call for ransom, Pankaj Jain disclosed him all the facts. He instructed him to talk with the caller as long as possible and during that period he contacted the senior officers and other police officials to pass on appropriate information to them. He also passed over the details of call to team headed over by Inspector Anil Sharma and SI Rajiv at Itawa. Pankaj Jain disclosed him that caller was threatening him to kill his son and also directed him that as per the subsequent call the SC No.20/10 State Vs. Imran @ Shiva & Ors. Page 20/47 ransom money was to be delivered at Old Bus Adda to a person wearing red colour towel in his neck and Pankaj Jain was also instructed to wear same colour towel and keep the money in red colour cloth. It was also disclosed that a man will show a ten rupees currency note and that number was noted down by Pankaj Jain and that ransom amount was to be delivered on matching the number of currency note. On 23.03.2007 in the evening he came to know that police team had apprehended the person named Imran @ Shiva. He also received information from police that kidnapped boy was recovered at the instance of accused Imran @ Shiva. During investigation and inquiry made by him, complainant Pankaj Jain disclosed that he was suspecting his factory workers especially Manju and Dharmender and these persons may be involved for kidnapping of his son. PW28 has also identified accused Manju and Dharmender. He also deposed that at the time of monitoring of suspects, he came to know after completing ransom call, the caller had made a telephonic call on mobile No.9213585013 of accused Dharmender @ Dharmu who was working as servant with Pankaj Jain for the last four years.
21. PW26 SI Vinay Yadav deposed that on 04.5.2007 he was posted as SI Investigation Staff East District. He SC No.20/10 State Vs. Imran @ Shiva & Ors. Page 21/47 had joined the investigation with Insp. Rajender Gautam. He asked him to provide voice call. Ct-Jaiveer accompanied him. The facility of interception on the mobile phone of the complainant was provide by their cell at the request of IO. The conversation between Imran and complainant and one lady accused Manju regarding mode of payment, releasing the amount and place of delivery was recorded and thereafter a CD was prepared about the conversation between Imran, Manju and complainant and it was handed over to Insp. Rajender Gautam, who seized and sealed it in an envelope after sealing the same with the seal of RPG vide seizure memo EX.PW21/D. IO Insp. Rajender Gautam also made a request for providing all five call details of 5 mobile phones which were mentioned in the request letter for the period 20.3.2007 to 25.3.2007. He prepared call detail report of five mobile numbers and handed over to Ct. Jaibeer for handing over to Insp. Rajender Gautam.
22. PW27 corroborated the statement of PW26 SI Vinay Yadav by deposing that he joined the investigation with IO Insp. Rajender Gautam arrived at the office of Special Staff, East District where SI Vinay Yadav handed over CD to him for conversation between accused Imran @ Shiva with Rani @ Manju as well as Pankaj Jain whose son was kidnapped and CD was handed over to him and SC No.20/10 State Vs. Imran @ Shiva & Ors. Page 22/47 thereafter it was seized by the IO vide memo EX.PW21/D after keeping and sealing it with the seal of RPG.
23. PW3 deposed that on 20.04.2007 he was posted at P.S. Krishna Nagar, Delhi. On that day he joined the investigation of this case alongwith Insp. Rajender Gautam and HC Bindu. Accused Imran and Rani @ Manju were present in the lock up of Karkardooma Court. They were taken in police custody and they were taken to CFSL CGO complex, Delhi. Voice sample of Imran and Rani @ Manju were taken in cassettes and that was taken into possession vide memo EX.PW3/A after converting into cloth parcel and sealing with RPG.
24. PW4 deposed that Ram Niwas came to reside as a tenant in his house in the year 2001. He lived there for three years and then left. He again came to reside as a tenant in his house for about one and half years ago. Ashok Kumar was his eldest son and Dharmender was his younger son. Dharmender was also known to him previously. He married with a lady who was older in age and they were residing as a tenant in street No. 11. Once Dharmender asked him to give an identity proof so that he may purchase a mobile phone. On his request he gave him photo identity or election identity card.
SC No.20/10 State Vs. Imran @ Shiva & Ors. Page 23/4725. PW10 deposed that he was working as Nodal Officer in Tata Tele Services and he had brought the summoned record in respect of mobile No.9210817093 and call detail of mobile No.9213285013 from 20.03.2007 to 25.03.2007. The mobile No. 9210817093 was registered in the name of Harish Chand. He proved certified copy of call details as Ex.PW10/A and Ex.PW10/B. He also proved certified copy of call detail of mobile phone No. 9213285013 as Ex.PW10/C-1 to Ex.PW10/C-4. This phone was registered in the name of Sh. Pawan Kumar. The call details were correct as per their office record and no tempering occurred in the system.
26. PW24 deposed that he was working in Bharti Airtel Ltd. as Nodal Officer. He identified the call details of mobile No.9997325578 for a period of 20.03.2007 to 25.03.2007 running into three pages as Mark-A.
27. PW30 deposed that he had brought customer application form of mobile No.9719447897 in the name of Pawan Kumar Shukla. Certified copies of application and ID proof were proved as Ex.PW30/A and Ex.PW30/B. He proved certified copies of call record for the period 20.03.2007 to 25.03.2007 alongwith certificate u/s 65-B SC No.20/10 State Vs. Imran @ Shiva & Ors. Page 24/47 Evidence Act, as Ex.PW30/C and Ex.PW30/D.
28. PW20 deposed that on 20.4.2007 he was posted as Sr. Scientific Officer Grade II (Photo). On that day Insp. Rajender Gautam produced two accused persons namely Imran @ Shiva and Smt. Rani @ Manju before him for recording their voice sample. After taking their willingness he had recorded the voice sample of both in two separate audio cassettes. Both cassettes were seized and sealed separately and sealed with the seal of RPG and taken into possession vide memo EX.PW3/A which were signed by him at point B and sealed parcel was handed over to HC Tek Chand. He identified accused Manju @ Rani in the court correctly. He also identified voice sample of Imran as EX.AC1 and voice mark as EX.AC2. He also identified his signature on the cover of the respective cassettes at point A.
29. PW23 deposed that on 20.4.2007 she was posted as HC in P.S Krishna Nagar. On that day she joined the investigation with IO Insp. Rajender Gautam. She accompanied accused Mohd. Imran @ Shiva and co- accused Rani @ Manju to CFSL office for recording of voice sample of above said accused persons. Both the accused persons gave voice samples to the concerned authorities SC No.20/10 State Vs. Imran @ Shiva & Ors. Page 25/47 on their own. The sample voices were recorded by concerned officers in the separate CD and said CDs were kept in separate cloth and said CDs were sealed with the seal of RG and that CDs were handed over to the IO.
30. PW31 deposed that on 20.4.2007 he helped in taking voice sample of accused Mohd. Imran @ Shiva and Smt. Rani @ Manju in two separate audio cassettes and those were seized vide memo EX.PW3/A and before seizing those were sealed with the seal of IO.
31. PW19 deposed that he was working as Sr. Scientific Officer in CFSL and he had been working in the field of Forensic Speaker identification for the last 16 years. He had received two sealed parcels marked Q1 and S1 from P.S. Krishna Nagar. He examined and found that seals of both the parcels were tallied. Parcel Q1 was opened and found that it contained a compact disc of make of Pleolax Samsung Corporation. The CD was played and found that CD was recorded subjected to be a person namely Mohd. Imran @ Shiva and Smt. Rani @ Manju. Conversation was marked as EX.P1(I) to P1 (V). On opening the parcel S-1 it was found that it contained two audio cassettes of make T-Series Ultra Slip XL 60 and denon T-Series C-60. The cassettes were marked S1(I) to S1(V). Mark S1(I) was SC No.20/10 State Vs. Imran @ Shiva & Ors. Page 26/47 played and found that it contained specimen voice recording of Smt. Rani @ Manju starting with sentence 'Hello Ram Ram Bhaiya. The audio mark S1(II) was played and found that it contained specific voice of Mohd. Imran @ Shiva starting with sentence 'Ha Ha Pankaj Kon Pankaj Bol Raha Hai itni der me phone received kiya jata hai'. The question voice in recorded conversation mark EX.Q1(I)(A) EX.Q1(II)(A) and EX.Q1(IV)(A) and specific voice of Rani @ Manju mark EX.S1(I)(A) was similar with their linguistic and phonetic features. Some common words were selected from the questioned and specimen voice of Smt. Rani @ Manju and these were similar in respect of their phonetic and distribution intonation pattern, number of formants and other general visual features in voice. He opined the voice EX.Q1(I)(A), EX.Q1II)(A), and EX.Q1(IV)(A) were the probable voices of Smt. Rani @ Manju whose specimen voice was S1(I)(A). The questioned voices in recorded conversation EX. EX.Q1(I)(A), EX.Q1(II)(A), EX.Q1(III)(A), EX.Q1(IV)(A) and EX.Q1(V)(A) and specimen voice of Mohd. Imran @ Shiva EX.S1(II)(A) were similar in respect to their formant, frequencies distribution, intonation. Some common words and sentences of Mohd. Imran were selected and were found similar in frequencies distribution intonation pattern, number of formants and other usual features in their voicegrams. He opined that voice SC No.20/10 State Vs. Imran @ Shiva & Ors. Page 27/47 EX.EX.Q1(I)(A) to EX.Q1(V)(A) were probable voices of Mohd. Imran @ Shiva whose specimen voice was EX. S1(II) (A). He proved his detailed report as EX.PW19/A running in 14 pages.
32. PW5 deposed that on 14.5.2007 he was posted at P.S. Krishna Nagar and on the direction of IO Insp. Rajender Gautam he collected two parcels bearing seal of RG vide RC no. 21/07 and deposited the same at CFSL, Lodhi Colony in intact condition and handed over the receipt to MHCM on that day.
33. PW6 deposed that on 24.03.2007 he joined the investigation with Insp. Rajender Gautam. Accused Rani @ Manju was arrested from Kanti Nagar, Delhi. She conducted her personal search vide memo EX.W6/B and accused Rani @ Manju was arrested vide arrest memo EX.PW6/A.
34. PW7 proved DD No.11A as EX.PW7/A. PW12 deposed that on 20.03.2007 he was posted at P.S. Krishna Nagar as duty officer and he was on duty from 4 p.m. to 12 p.m. At about 10 p.m. Ct. Pratap presented a rukka sent by Insp. Rajender Gautam for registration of case and he recorded FIR carbon copy of which was proved as EX.PW12/A. He also proved photostat copies of the DD SC No.20/10 State Vs. Imran @ Shiva & Ors. Page 28/47 52B as EX.PW12/B and DD no.60B as Ex.PW12/C. PW17 proved DD No. 58B as EX.PW17/A. PW22 proved DD No. 53B as EX.PW22/A.
35. PW25 proved entries in register no. 19 by MHCM at P.S. Krishna Nagar at Sl. No. 2491 as EX.PW25/A, and at Sl. No. 2492 as EX.PW25/B. He also deposed that till the case property remained in his possession, it was not tampered with, in any manner.
36. PW21 Insp. Rajender Gautam corroborated statements of all the above mentioned PWs and supported their testimonies.
37. On analyzing the prosecution evidence and on considering the arguments of Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor and Ld. Defence Counsels, I come to the conclusion that prosecution has proved its case against all the accused persons beyond reasonable suspicion and doubt. The reasons which support my decision are firstly that all the prosecution witnesses deposed consistently and corroborated statements of each other. Relevant portions of their testimonies have already been reproduced here in below.
SC No.20/10 State Vs. Imran @ Shiva & Ors. Page 29/4738. Secondly, I do not find material contradiction of such nature which may create doubt about the genuineness of the prosecution case in any of the prosecution witnesses. The minor discrepancies are required to be ignored in view of the principles of law laid down in cases Leela Ram (Dead) through Duli Chand v. State of Haryana, (SC) 1999(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 588 and Appabhai and another v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 696, wherein the Apex Court observed:
"The Court while appreciating the evidence must not attach undue importance to minor discrepancies. The discrepancies which do not shake the basic version of the prosecution case may be discarded. The discrepancies which are due to normal errors of perception or observation should not be given importance. The errors due to lapse of memory may be given due allowance. The Court by calling into aid its vast experience of men and matters in different cases must evaluate the entire material on record by excluding the exaggerated version given by any witness. When a doubt arises in respect of certain facts alleged by such witness, the proper course is to ignore that fact only unless it goes into the root of the matter so as to demolish the entire prosecution story. The witnesses nowadays go on adding embellishments to their version perhaps for the fear of their testimony being rejected by the Court. The courts, however, should not disbelieve the evidence of such witnesses altogether if they are otherwise trustworthy."
39. Thirdly, the disclosure statement of accused Imran @ Shiva Ex.PW13/C is admissible in evidence as after making the disclosure statement, he led the police SC No.20/10 State Vs. Imran @ Shiva & Ors. Page 30/47 party to village Sikandarpur to the house of accused Reshma and disclosure statement of Reshma Ex.PW13/H is also admissible in evidence as consequent upon the disclosure statement, she led the police party to another house from where kidnapped child Chirag @ Chinki was recovered and her husband Satyawan and other accused Pawan @ Shankar and Hari Om were arrested.
40. Fourthly, the prosecution has proved the connections of accused persons. Accused Reshma is wife of accused Satyawan and accused Puran and Hari Om are related to them. Accused Dharmender & Rani @ Manju were living as husband and wife and thus they are also related to each other. Their relations coupled with the evidence on record as well as the information disclosed in the disclosure statements have proved that there was previous meeting of mind of all the accused persons in hatching conspiracy for kidnapping of child Chirag @ Chinki with the object to earn illegal money in the form of ransom by putting Pankaj Jain in fear for killing his son Chirag @ Chinki.
41. Fifthly, the case of the prosecution has been further corroborated by telephonic conversation which had taken place between the accused Imran @ Shiva and SC No.20/10 State Vs. Imran @ Shiva & Ors. Page 31/47 Pankaj Jain and between Imran @ Shiva and Manju. The scientific evidence and particularly evidence of PW20, PW23, PW31 & PW19 have specifically mentioned that there was similarity of voices of accused Imran @ Shiva and Manju @ Rani in the questioned and sample voice recording. Thus not only the oral evidence but also the scientific evidence has proved prosecution case against the accused persons.
42. Sixthly, prosecution case has been corroborated by independent person particularly PW9 Ahzaz Ahmad. Accused Imran @ Shiva was arrested from his booth near Bus Adda, Itawa. No illwill or enmity against PW9 Ahzaz Ahmad has been proved. This has shown that his testimony is credible and trustworthy and can be acted upon.
43. Seventhly, the STD/PCO booth slip vide which accused Imran made payment were proved by prosecution as Ex.PW13/Y, Ex.PW13/X and PW13/G. These contain a telephone Nos.09213255013 and 9210817093. Telephone No. 09213255013 was owned by Pankaj Jain and telephone No. 9210817093 was in the name of PW5 Sh. Harish Chand Sharma who gave his identity proof to accused Dharmender for obtaining telephone connection. This has SC No.20/10 State Vs. Imran @ Shiva & Ors. Page 32/47 further connected the accused Dharmender and Manju @ Rani to the present crime.
44. Eighthly, the officials from mobile company PW30 namely Israr Babu have also proved not only the call details Ex.PW30/C to Ex.PW30/D but also proved the application form Ex.PW30/A to Ex.PW30/B for obtaining the mobile phone connection. These mobile phones have been used in commission of crime. This has further connected the chain of events and leads to the conclusion that all the accused persons were involved in commission of above said crime.
45. Ninethly, not only the oral evidence as discussed here in above but also circumstantial evidence detailed here in above have established the prosecution case against all the accused persons and chain of events which have been established on record by evidence are so well connected that it leads to the only conclusion that all the accused persons to achieve the object for earning illegal money in the form of ransom committed the said crime.
46. It has been argued on behalf of accused Satyawan and Reshma that evidence on record could not SC No.20/10 State Vs. Imran @ Shiva & Ors. Page 33/47 proved any link of Reshma & Satyawan with the main conspiracy as Reshma & Satyawan never visited Delhi and never met with accused persons and there was no evidence on record that either of them ever met or communicated with accused persons prior to the incident of kidnapping. This arguments of Ld. Defence Counsel is not convincing for the above mentioned reasons as well as for the reasons that accused Reshma & Satyawan was related to accused Dharmender & Manju and abducted child was recovered at the instance of accused Reshma in the house where Satyawan was also found present alongwith accused Puran and Hari Om alongwith abducted child. This lead to the conclusion that they were also involved in the conspiracy. In case Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati v CBI, (supra), it has been held that it is very difficult to establish conspiracy by direct evidence. In the present case also there cannot be any direct evidence but the indirect evidence and the evidence referred to here in above leads to the conclusion that they all were involved in commission of said crime.
47. It has also been argued on their behalf that accused Imran @ Shiva was interrogated in a close room and thereafter they went to village Sikanderpur. In my view that will also not provide any benefit to them as SC No.20/10 State Vs. Imran @ Shiva & Ors. Page 34/47 admittedly, the accused Reshma and Satyawan were arrested from their village in the presence of co accused Hari Om and Puran and kidnapped child was with them on the facts disclosed by him in his disclosure statement.
48. It has also been argued on their behalf that PW2 Sh. Sushil Jain was most interested witness. It is admitted fact that PW2 is relative of PW1 Sh. Pankaj Jain. In my view that ipso facto, will not convert his testimony as unreliable. As held in Paresh Kalyan Das Bhasar v. Sadiq Yakubhai Jamadar, AIR 1993 SC 1544, his testimony has to be examined carefully. The Apex Court observed that:
"Mere interest-ness is not a ground to reject the evidence of the eye-witnesses particularly those who were injured. Firstly, their presence during the occurrence cannot be ousted. Secondly, the injured witnesses would be the last person to leave out the real culprits and implicate others falsely. However, it becomes necessary to scrutinize their evidence with great care and caution. Normally in a case of this nature the evidence of such witnesses is scrutinized in the light of the medical evidence, their previous statements, the earliest version put forward and other circumstances like the investigations being defective and also the effect of omissions or discrepancies, if any."
49. I have examined his testimony carefully and do not find any point which may create any suspicion or doubt which could lead to the presumption that he deposed falsely.
SC No.20/10 State Vs. Imran @ Shiva & Ors. Page 35/4750. It has also been argued on their behalf that prosecution case is not reliable as the IO has failed to join any person from village Sikanderpur and further it could not be established that abducted child was kidnapped from the house of Reshma and Satyawan. This argument of Ld. Defence Counsel is not convincing as the testimonies of prosecution witnesses have been found reliable, consistent and trustworthy and accused persons have failed to even allege as to why other officials, public persons and police witnesses have deposed against them. Their testimony is as trustworthy as testimony of any other witness as held in Ahir Raja Khima v. State of Saurashtra, AIR 1956 SC 217 wherein it was observed:
"The presumption that a person acts honestly apply so much in favour of a police officer as of other persons, and it is not judicial approach to distrust and suspect him without good grounds, therefore, such an attitude can do neither credit to the Magistracy nor good to the public. It can only run down the prestige of the police administration."
51. It has been argued on behalf of of accused Hari Om that investigation officer has failed to join any independent public public witnesses in the investigation at village Sikandarpur and therefore, prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused Hari Om beyond any suspicion or doubt. I have examined the evidence on this SC No.20/10 State Vs. Imran @ Shiva & Ors. Page 36/47 aspect and keeping in view that principles of law laid down in Ahir Raja Khima v. State of Saurashtra, (supra), testimony of police witnesses are as trustworthy as testimony of other witness therefore, this argument of Ld. Defence Counsel is not convincing.
52. It has been argued on behalf of accused Manju and Puran that they have not been named by any witness. Puran was arrested from Anand Vihar bus stand and not from village Sikandarpur. Even Sh. Pankaj Jain has not levelled any allegations against accused Manju. On examination of evidence on this aspect I find that Sh. Pankaj Jain, inter alia, stated that Manju was his employee. There is no evidence on record to establish that Puran was arrested from Anand Vihar bus stand, instead of his arrest from village Sikandarpur. Circumstantial evidence has established that Manju & Puran were also involved in the conspiracy for abduction and kidnapping of child Chirag @ Chinki. I find that all the principles which are required for holding the accused guilty on the basis of circumstantial evidence are well established in the present case as held in case Sanatan Naskar Vs. State of West Bengal, (2010) 8 SCC 249, wherein it was observed by Apex Court that:
"153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established:SC No.20/10 State Vs. Imran @ Shiva & Ors. Page 37/47
(l) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be or should be proved' as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade vs. State of Maharashtra where the observations were made: [SCC p.807, para 19: SCC (Cri) p. 1047] '19..... Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between "may be" and "must be" is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.' (emphasis in original) (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
154. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence."
53. It has also been argued on behalf of accused Hari Om that there was no recovery of child from his possession, besides PW Sh. Ahzaz Ahmad is a hostile witness. It has been submitted that prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused Hari Om.
SC No.20/10 State Vs. Imran @ Shiva & Ors. Page 38/4754. I find that portion of testimony of PW9, which support the prosecution case can be relied on. I find that no reason to disbelieve testimony of PW9 merely on the ground that he was declared hostile. This decision finds support by principles of law laid down case State v. V. Sejappa, (Karnataka), 2008 Cri.L.J. 3312, wherein the Karnataka High Court observed:
"27. As far as the acceptance of evidence of the hostile witness is concerned, it is a well settled law that part of the hostile witness which goes well with the prosecution case can be accepted and rejecting only that portion of the evidence which does not support the prosecution case. Therefore applying such yardstick in the instant case, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the evidence of P W. 1 has to be ignored in totality merely because of a witness not supporting the prosecution case in certain minor aspects which do not have any bearing on the core of the prosecution case. ***Therefore, on the very same analogy of accepting the evidence of a hostile witness to the extent that it supports the prosecution case, the testimony of P.W. 2 also will have to be accepted in regard to that part of the evidence, which supports the prosecution case."
55. It has been argued on behalf of accused Dharmender that prosecution has failed to establish meeting of mind of accused Dharmender with other person. Therefore, prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused Dharmender. This arguments of Ld. Defence Counsel is not convincing as it has been SC No.20/10 State Vs. Imran @ Shiva & Ors. Page 39/47 established that accused Dharmender used the identity proof of PW Ram Niwas for obtaining mobile No. 9210817093 and on the basis of identity proof he obtained that connection and handed over to accused Manju @ Rani. It has been established that he was residing with her and she was found talking with main accused Imran @ Shiva on the same day and at the same time when he had conversation with Sh. Pankaj Jain PW1. This has established firm connectivity of accused Dharmender in the present case. Therefore, arguments of defence counsel in this regard is not convincing.
56. It has also been argued that Rani @ Manju is not a legally wedded wife of accused Dharmender. In my view that will not provide any benefit to him as it has been established that they were residing together at relevant time.
CONCLUSION
57. On the basis of above reasons and discussion and particularly discussed here in above it is held that prosecution has proved its case against all the accused persons namely Puran @ Shankar, Hari Om, Dharmender @ Dharmu, Smt. Rani @ Manju, Satyawan Katheria and Smt. SC No.20/10 State Vs. Imran @ Shiva & Ors. Page 40/47 Reshma, that they with Mohd. Imran @ Shiva, (since proclaimed offender), hatched criminal conspiracy for doing an unlawful act of kidnapping punishable u/s 120B IPC and all of them in pursuance of criminal conspiracy abducted child Chirag @ Chinki from lawful guardianship of his father Pankaj Jain and confined him secretly and wrongfully for a period of three days punishable u/s 343/365 IPC and demanded ransom by putting Sh. Pankaj Jain in fear to kill his son and thereby committed the offence of kidnapping for ransom of child Chirag @ Chinki punishable u/s 364A. Therefore, all the accused persons are held guilty and convicted for the offences punishable u/s 343/364-A/365/120-B IPC.
58. Mohd. Imran @ Shiva, is proclaimed offender. The evidence on record in the present case be treated as evidence u/s 299 Cr.P.C. and it may be used as and when accused Mohd. Imran @ Shiva is arrested and supplementary charge sheet against him is filed. It may be used as per law.
59. Accused Puran @ Shankar, Hari Om, Dharmender @ Dharmu, and Satyawan Katheria are already in J.C. SC No.20/10 State Vs. Imran @ Shiva & Ors. Page 41/47
60. Accused Smt. Rani @ Manju & Reshma are on bail. They be taken into J.C.
61. Put up this case for arguments on quantum of sentence on 09.04.2012.
Announced in the open court on 03.04.2012 (DR. T.R. NAVAL) Addl. Sessions Judge-02 East District:KKD Courts:Delhi SC No.20/10 State Vs. Imran @ Shiva & Ors. Page 42/47 IN THE COURT OF DR. T.R. NAVAL,ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-02,EAST DISTRICT,KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI SC NO.20/10 FIR No.129/07 PS Krishna Nagar U/S 365/364-A/343/120-B IPC State Versus Mohd. Imran @ Shiva & Ors.
ORDER ON SENTENCE 11.04.2012 Present: Sh. I U H Siddiqui, Addl. P.P. for the State.
Accused Imran @ Shiva is P.O. Convict/accused persons namely Puran @ Shankar, Hari Om, Dharmender @ Dharmu, Smt. Rani @ Manju, Satyawan Katheria and Smt. Reshma are present in J.C. I have heard arguments on the quantum of sentence and perused file.
2. It has been argued on behalf of convict/accused Puran @ Shankar that he is young boy of 22 years of age. It has been prayed that lenient view in sentence may be taken.
3. It has been argued on behalf of convict/accused Dharmender @ Dharmu that he is a young boy; he has two SC No.20/10 State Vs. Imran @ Shiva & Ors. Page 43/47 sisters of marriagable age, he does not have previous criminal record; and he has already in jail for the last five years. It has been prayed that lenient view in sentence may be taken.
4. It has been argued on behalf of convict/accused Smt. Rani @ Manju that she has two children of tender age; her husband is already in jail and nobody is there to look after the children. It has been prayed that lenient view in sentence may be taken.
5. It has been argued on behalf of convict/accused Satyawan Katheria & Reshma that both these accused are husband and wife. They are illiterate. They have three dependent minor children to look after in the age group of 17 to 8 years. Satyawan has been in JC for the last five years and Smt. Reshma has been in J.C. for a period of about 4 years. It has been prayed that lenient view in sentence may be taken either by releasing them on the sentence already undergone or releasing them on probation.
6. On the other hand it has been argued on behalf of Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor that no leniency should be taken and deterrent punishment should be awarded to SC No.20/10 State Vs. Imran @ Shiva & Ors. Page 44/47 the accused persons.
7. Keeping in view the submissions and all relevant factors of the present case, it would be just and proper if deterrent view is taken in awarding sentence to the accused/convicts. I am of the view that none of the accused/convicts is not entitled for getting the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act.
8. Accordingly, each of the Convicts/accused namely Puran @ Shankar, Dharmender @ Dharmu, Smt. Rani @ Manju, Satyawan Katheria and Smt. Reshma is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for the period of five years and each of them is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under section 365 IPC.
9. Each of the Convicts/accused namely Puran @ Shankar, Dharmender @ Dharmu, Smt. Rani @ Manju, Satyawan Katheria and Smt. Reshma is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for Life and each of them is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default simple imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under section 364-A IPC.
SC No.20/10 State Vs. Imran @ Shiva & Ors. Page 45/4710. Each of the Convicts/accused namely Puran @ Shankar, Dharmender @ Dharmu, Smt. Rani @ Manju, Satyawan Katheria and Smt. Reshma is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for the period of one year and each of them is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default simple imprisonment for two months for the offence punishable under section 343 IPC.
11. Each of the Convicts/accused namely Puran @ Shankar, Dharmender @ Dharmu, Smt. Rani @ Manju, Satyawan Katheria and Smt. Reshma is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for the period of three years and each of them is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under section 120-B IPC.
12. All these sentences will run concurrently.
13. It is further ordered that if convict/accused Puran @ Shankar, Dharmender @ Dharmu, Smt. Rani @ Manju, Satyawan Katheria and Smt. Reshma have undergone any period in judicial custody, that period will be set off against the sentence as provided U/s 428 Cr. P.C.
14. The convict/accused Puran @ Shankar, SC No.20/10 State Vs. Imran @ Shiva & Ors. Page 46/47 Dharmender @ Dharmu, Smt. Rani @ Manju, Satyawan Katheria and Smt. Reshma be sent to imprisonment to serve the sentence.
15. Order on sentence in respect of accused Hari Om is kept pending till disposal of his application for determining his correct age.
16. A copy each of judgment and order on sentence is supplied to convict/accused Puran @ Shankar, Dharmender @ Dharmu, Smt. Rani @ Manju, Satyawan Katheria and Smt. Reshma free of cost.
Announced in the open court on 11.04.2012 (DR. T.R. NAVAL) Additional Sessions Judge-02 East District,KKD Courts, Delhi SC No.20/10 State Vs. Imran @ Shiva & Ors. Page 47/47