Delhi District Court
State vs . Prabal Pratap on 6 July, 2018
State vs. Prabal Pratap
IN THE COURT OF MS. BABITA PUNIYA: METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE (MAHILA COURT-02), SHAHDARA,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
State vs. Prabal Pratap
FIR No. 460/06
U/sec. 384/420/511 IPC
PS: Seema Puri
Date of institution of the case: 16.09.2006
Date on which judgment is reserved: Not reserved
Date on which judgment is delivered: 06.07.2018
Unique I. D. No. 80154/2016
JUDGMENT
a) Sr. No. of the case : RBT 24/2018
b) Date of commission of the offence : 30.06.2006
c) Name of the complainant : Sh. Deepak Rai
d) Name of the accused and his parentage : Prabal Pratap
S/o Sh. Udai Singh Rathore
R/o Village Shahpur Daiyala,
Teh-Ratyali, PS Raja Ka Rampur,
District Etah, UP.
e) Offence complained of or proved : Sec. 384/420/511 IPC
f) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
g) Final order : Acquitted
h) Date of such order : 06.07.2018
FIR No.460/06 Page No.1 of 12
State vs. Prabal Pratap
i) Brief reasons for the just decision of the case:
Succinctly stated, the facts of the prosecution case are that on 29.06.2006 at about 01:30 p.m., a boy named Kapil left his house for purchasing toffee. When he did not return, search was made for the child but he was not traced. Various telephone calls were made to the relatives and enquiries were made from other places where the boy was expected to have gone but he was not traced. As such, his father lodged the first missing complaint in Seema Puri Police Station. The police registered a DD No. 28-A/Ex.PW7/A on the same day.
A notice was also published in the newspapers announcing a reward of Rs. 10,000/- for anyone who furnished the clue of the missing child's whereabouts.
On 30.06.2006 at about 04:23 p.m., brother of the child namely Ranjeet Kashyap received a telephone call on his mobile phone No. 9899108671 at his house No. 41-A, Dilshad Garden, Delhi. He heard one male voice saying that the child is in his custody and he will be released if the ransom amount of Rs.20 lac is paid. Brother of the child expressed their inability to pay such a huge amount. At about 04:23 p.m., he again received a call and this time, caller demanded Rs. 50,000/- and stated that he is at Rai, Haryana. Thereafter, father of child lodged a complaint/Ex.PW1/A. Consequently, the present First Information Report/Ex.PW4/B was registered at PS Seema Puri under section 364-A IPC against unknown person.
On 17.07.2006, the complainant informed the police that the caller would come to collect the ransom money. Accordingly, the IO along with Constable visited his house and laid a trap.
FIR No.460/06 Page No.2 of 12State vs. Prabal Pratap At about 09:30 p.m., one person came to collect the ransom money. The complainant gave the signal, as instructed earlier, whereupon the police officials rushed to the place and apprehended the accused Prabal Pratap.
Accused while in police custody suffered a disclosure statement/Ex.PW5/D wherein he stated that he read the "hue and cry" notice in the newspaper and the reward of Rs. 10 lac. He further stated that he in his greed made the phone calls from various PCOs and came to collect the money.
Thereafter, after completion of the investigation, challan under sections 386/420/511 IPC was filed against the accused. Consequently, accused was summoned to face the trial. On his appearance, in the Court, the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution, were supplied to him as per norms.
Thereafter, charge under section 384 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
With a view to connect the accused with the crime, the prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses.
PW1/Deepak Rai was the complainant. He testified that on 29.06.2006 at about 01:30 p.m., his son Kapil went to purchase toffee. When he did not return, he made a missing complaint in Seema Puri police station.
He made efforts to search his son and also got published a hue and cry notice in newspaper Punjab Kesri. After some time, his elder son started receiving calls on his mobile phone no. 9899108671. Caller demanded Rs. 20 lac for releasing his son Kapil. He made clear to the caller that he is retired Govt., servant and cannot arrange Rs. 20 lac. In the evening, he again received call from that person and this time, he demanded Rs. 50,000/- and stated that he is at Rai, Haryana. The caller FIR No.460/06 Page No.3 of 12 State vs. Prabal Pratap said that he would release his son, if the payment is made. Thereafter, he lodged a complaint Ex.PW1/A. He further stated that thereafter, his elder son Ranjeet Kashyap went to Ludhiyana, Punjab along with the police party in search of his missing child.
He further stated that accused Prabal Pratap was apprehended from Punjab and brought to Delhi. He was called to police station and was informed that accused Prabal Pratap was making the ransom calls. His son informed him that the accused was apprehended from a PCO Booth at Punjab.
Since the witness resiled from his previous statement, he was cross-examined by the learned APP for the State with the permission of the court and confronted him with his statement purportedly given to the Investigating Officer.
He during his cross-examination by the learned APP for the State stated that he does not remember if his statement was recorded by the police on 17.07.2006. He denied the suggestion that on 17.07.2006, accused came at H-Block, Dilshad Garden to receive the ransom and he appended him and informed the police.
PW2/Manish Kumar was the owner of the PCO. He stated that on 13.07.2006, he handed over the list of calls made from his PCO. Same is Ex.PW2/A. He was also cross-examined by the learned APP for the State. He during his cross- examination by learned APP for the State stated that he does not know any accused by the name of Prabal Pratap. He further stated that he cannot say if he is present in the court or not.
His attention was drawn towards the accused standing in the court, however, he failed to identify him.
FIR No.460/06 Page No.4 of 12State vs. Prabal Pratap PW3/Ramesh Kumar was also the owner of PCO. He stated that in the month of July, 2006, he gave print out of outgoing calls to the police. The same is Ex. PW3/A. He too was cross-examined by the learned APP for the state and confronted him with his previous statement Mark A, but he refused to identify or recognize the accused in the court.
PW3/ASI Inder Pal was the Duty Officer, who had recorded the FIR/Ex.PW4/B. PW5/HC Satpal Singh had accompanied the IO during investigation.
PW6/Inspector Vijay Bhushan was the 2nd IO of the present case. On 17.07.2006, investigation of the present case was marked to him. Thereafter, he conducted the search for the accused and visited the PCO from where the alleged calls were made.
PW7/Retd. ASI Satya Prakash was the 1st IO of the present case. He stated that on 30.06.2006, he was on emergency duty. He received a DD No. 28-A regarding missing of a child namely Kapil Dev. He made hue and cry notice and sent WT message to missing persons Squad. He made efforts to search the boy but he could not be traced.
On 10.07.206, complainant came to police station and informed him about the extortion call. He recorded the statement of the complainant/Ex.PW1/A, prepared the rukka/Ex.PW7/B and handed over the same to the Duty Officer of registration of the FIR. Thereafter, he prepared the site plan and conducted the investigation. Thereafter, investigation was marked to SI Vijay Bhushan. On 17.07.2006, again the investigation was marked to him.
FIR No.460/06 Page No.5 of 12State vs. Prabal Pratap He stated that on that day at about 08:00 p.m., he received a call from the complainant, who informed him about the ransom call. He informed him that the caller is demanding Rs. 20,000/- in lieu of the child. Thereafter, he along with Constable Satpal visited the house of the complainant.
Thereafter, he laid a trap to apprehend the accused. At about 09:30 p.m., one person came and demanded Rs. 20,000/- from the complainant. Complainant gave signal to the IO and the IO with the help of Constable Satpal apprehended the accused Prabal Pratap. He interrogated the accused and also conducted his personal search. During his personal search, he found a diary wherein the address of the accused as well as the missing child was mentioned. He seized the diary vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/C, arrested him vide arrest memo Ex.PW5/A, recorded his disclosure statement/Ex.PW5/D and also recorded the supplementary statement of the complainant. Thereafter, he conducted further investigation.
PW/Rajender Kumar could not be examined by the prosecution as he was not traceable. On every occasion, summons received back un-served with the report that the witness has left the given address/not residing at the given address. Even the summons upon him could not be served through the office of the concerned DCP. Therefore, he was dropped from the list of witnesses and PE was closed and statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein after referred to as the Code).
I have heard the learned APP for the State and the learned defence counsel and have also perused the file very carefully.
Arguments It is argued by the learned APP for the State that the accused intentionally put the complainant in fear of injury to his son and dishonestly induced him to pay a sum FIR No.460/06 Page No.6 of 12 State vs. Prabal Pratap of Rs. 20 lac and thereby committed an offence of extortion punishable under section 384 IPC.
Per contra, it was argued on behalf of the accused that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submitted that as per the prosecution, accused demanded the ransom money of Rs. 20, 00,000/- for releasing the missing child Kapil Dev. The complainant i.e. the father of the missing child informed police about this ransom call. IO along with a Constable reached his house and thereafter, a trap was laid in order to apprehend the accused. At about 09:30 p.m., accused came to the house of the complainant to collect the ransom and on the complainant giving the required signal, IO with the help of Constable apprehended the accused from the house of the complainant.
He submitted that as per the prosecution, the accused was arrested from the house of the complainant whereas the complainant/PW1 has stated in the court that the accused Prabal Pratap was apprehended from a PCO at Punjab and was brought to Delhi.
He submitted that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. He therefore, prayed that the accused may be acquitted of the offence charged with as the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Decision and brief reasons for the same Before delving into the legal aspects, it would be advantageous to refer the relevant provisions of law involved in this case.
FIR No.460/06 Page No.7 of 12State vs. Prabal Pratap Section 383 IPC reads as follows:
Extortion - Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver any person any property or valuable security, or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits extortion.
Section 384 IPC reads as follows:
Punishment for extortion - Whoever commits extortion shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.S. Nayak vs. A.R. Antulay AIR 1986 SC 2045 =1986 SCR (2) 621 held that the main ingredients of the offence are:
(i) the accused must put any person in fear of injury to that person or any other person;
(ii) the putting of a person in such fear must be intentional; (ii1) the accused must thereby induce the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property, valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security; and
(iv) such inducement must be done dishonestly.
Now, let us see the case of the prosecution. On the complaint of PW1/complainant, a DD Entry No. 28-A/Ex.PW7/A was lodged in PS Seema Puri regarding missing of his child. Messages were relayed and "hue and cry" notices were pasted to trace the child. A notice was also published in the newspaper announcing a reward of Rs. 10,000/- for anyone who furnished the clue of the missing child's whereabouts.
FIR No.460/06 Page No.8 of 12State vs. Prabal Pratap On 30.06.2006, elder son of the complainant received a call on his mobile phone number 9899108671. The caller stated that child is in his custody and he demanded ransom of Rs. 20 lac for the return of the boy. Consequently, the present FIR was registered under section 364-A IPC against unknown person.
On 17.07.2006, complainant informed the police that the caller would come to his house to collect the ransom money of Rs. 20 lac. Consequently, a trap was laid and the accused Prabal Pratap was apprehended from the house of the complainant. Thereafter, the owners of PCOs from where the alleged calls for demand of ransom were made were examined and their statements were recorded. After, completion of investigation, challan was filed in the court.
Now, let us see if the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
To bring home the guilt of the accused Prabal Pratap, the prosecution has cited as many as eight (8) witnesses in the list of witnesses annexed with the charge-sheet. Out of these eight witnesses, PW1 was the informant and the father of the missing boy Kapil Dev. PW2/Manish Kumar and PW3/Ramesh Kumar were the owners of the PCO booths from where the accused allegedly had made ransom calls. PW7/ASI Satya Prakash was the Investigating Officer of the case, who laid the trap and apprehended the accused from the house of the complainant/PW1. Rest witnesses are formal in nature.
As per the prosecution, elder son of the complainant namely Ranjeet Kashyap received the ransom calls on his mobile phone 9899108671, however, surprisingly he has not even been cited as a prosecution witness. However, to reach at the just conclusion of the case, oral prayer for calling him as a prosecution witness was allowed but as per the report submitted by the DCP, he is un-traceable.
FIR No.460/06 Page No.9 of 12State vs. Prabal Pratap PW1/Shri Deepak Rai was the star witness of the prosecution. He, in his statement record on 17.07.2006 under section 161 of the Code, stated that accused came to his house to collect the ransom money and the police apprehended him from his house and arrested him at his instance. However, when he entered the witness box, he made a volte-face and stated that the police apprehended the accused from a PCO Booth at Punjab and brought him to Delhi.
Since the complainant resiled from his previous statements given before the police, he was cross-examined by the learned APP for the State.
He during her cross-examination stated that he does not remember if his statement was recorded on 17.07.2006. The said statement was read over to the witness by the learned APP for the State, however, the witness denied the suggestion that on 17.07.2006, accused Prabal Pratap came to his house to receive the ransom money of Rs. 20 lac and he was apprehended from his house at his instance. He stated that one boy from Mathura, who has demanded Rs. 10,000/- for releasing his son was apprehended from his house but was released later on.
Thus, the version given by the complainant before the police during course of trial is not supported by his own deposition on oath before the court.
All his statements whether recorded on 17.07.2006 or given by him on oath in court are contradictory and do not inspire any confidence. He does not come across as a trust worthy or reliable witness.
Similarly, both the PCO owners viz PW2/Manish Kumar and PW3/Ramesh Kumar are also not reliable or trustworthy witnesses. The version disclosed by them as a witness in the court is quite different from what they had stated in their statements recorded in the course of investigation under section 161 of the Code. During their examination-in-chief before the court, they disowned their earlier version given to FIR No.460/06 Page No.10 of 12 State vs. Prabal Pratap the police. They too were cross-examined by the learned APP for the State with the permission of the court but they had not stated anything incriminating against the accused Prabal Pratap. They failed to identify the accused in the court as the wrongdoer.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Suraj Mal versus the State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1979 S.C. 1408, observed as under:-
"Where witnesses make two inconsistent statements in their evidence either at one stage or at two stages, the testimony of such witnesses becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the absence of special circumstances no conviction can be based on the evidence of such witness."
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. State 1997(2) CC Cases HC 291 observed as under:-
"Where the PW has been absolutely inconsistent and has been changing his stand from time to time, he cannot be regarded as reliable and trustworthy witness of the occurrence".
Thus, I am of the considered opinion that that the materials and evidence on the record do not bridge the gap between "may be true" and "must be true" so essential for a Court to cross, while finding the guilty of an accused, particularly when the complainant has himself stated claimed that accused was not apprehended from his house.
For the reasons which I have outlined above, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to discharge the heavy burden imposed on it by law of satisfying this court beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused. Therefore, I give benefit of doubt to the accused and accordingly, accused Prabal Pratap is acquitted of the offence leveled against him.
FIR No.460/06 Page No.11 of 12State vs. Prabal Pratap Bail bond under section 437A of the Code furnished. Perused and accepted for a period of six months from today.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Court on 06st day of July, 2018 (Babita Puniya) MM(Mahila Court-02/Shahdara KKD Courts/Delhi 06.07.2018 This judgment contains 12 pages and each page bears my signature. Digitally signed by BABITA BABITA PUNIYA Date:
PUNIYA 2018.07.06
17:30:39
+0530
(Babita Puniya)
MM(Mahila Court-02/Shahdara
KKD Courts/Delhi
06.07.2018
FIR No.460/06 Page No.12 of 12