Delhi District Court
Kumar vs State That "The Only Relevant Factor Is ... on 8 February, 2010
-:1:-
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR GOYAL
ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE: FAST TRACK COURT
ROHINI:DELHI
SC No. 12/1
Date of Institution: 21/01/09
Date of arguments heard:04/02/2010
Date of order reserved.04/02/2010
Date of Decision: 08/02/10
State
Versus
1. Siddharth Jain
S/o Sunil Kr. Jain
R/o A012, DA Flats, Singhora Kalan
Shakti Nagar, Delhi.
2. Naveen Kumar
S/o Amar Singh
PS Balia, District Begusari
Bihar.
3. Kailash
S/o Chatur Lal.
R/O N. Block Shakupur, Delhi.
4. Balwinder @ Billa
S/o Kishan Lal
R/o G-467, JJ Colony
Shakurpur, Delhi]
5. Smt Nisha
W/o Abhinav Jain
R/o C-3/32, Keshav Puram, Delhi
6. Abhinav Jain
S/o Sunil Kumar Jain
R/o A-12, Singhora Kalan,
DA flats, Shakti Nagar,
Delhi,
-:2:-
7. Rajni (Juvenile)
D/o Nanak Chand
R/o C-3/32, Keshav Puram
8. Kanta
w/o NanakChand
R/o C-3/32, Keshav Puram,
Delhi
9. Nanak Chand
S/o Lal Man
R/o C-3/32, Keshav Puram , Delhi.
10. Chandrika @ Raju (P.O.)
S/o Saligaram
R/o VPO, Dhaboli
District Sahrasa, Bihar
11 .Ravi Bihari (P.O.)
S/o Jamna Singh
R/o Village0 Narain Garh,
PS Chunoti, District Gaya,
Bihar and C-497, Shakarpur, Delhi
12. Rajnesh @ Girsih (P.O)
S/o Udit. Narain
R/o VPO, Vasdevpur, District
Bihar
13. Ramesh (P.O.)
S/o Kanihya Lal
R/O G-88, JJ Colony,
Shakur Pur, Delhi.
FIR No. 33/01
PS - Bawana
U/s. 364A/328/120B of IPC
JUDGMENT
This case was registered on the statement of one Amit Jindal who has state that he resides in Pitam Pura, Delhi and runs a shop in -:3:- the name and style of Jindal Garments at ED-60, A Pitam Pura, Delhi. His elder brother Ashish Jindal runs a garment shop in Karol Bagh. Their car no. DL-8CF-9746 make Santro met with an accident on 17/01/01 which was given for repair in Hans Hyundai workshop, Bawana Road, Delhi. He has further stated that on 29/01/10, his brother Ashish, started with him from the house and after dropping him at his garment shop, went to his maternal uncle's house and from there he had gone to Hans Hundayi, Bawana Road to get the Santro car with his cousin and took the delivery of the car. Thereafter, he dropped spare parts of car at Rahul Properties, Bawana Road and went from there. Thereafter, he did not return to the home. They searched for him with the relatives and friends, but could not trace him. On the same day i.e. 29/01/01, in the evening, they received a phone from Ashish that he met with an accident so he will come late. Thereafter, on 20/01/2001, at about 11.00 am in the day, someone made a phone call at their house and said that Ashish was with them and if they wanted him, then they should pay Rs.30 lacs as ransom and thereafter phone was disconnected. After some time, again one person made a phone call and demanded ransom of Rs.25 lacs against the release of Ashish. Thereafter, they received such threatening calls many times in their house that Ashish was kidnapped and if the ransom money would not be paid then they would kill Ashish. He has further -:4:- stated that his brother Ashish was threatened with life so necessary legal action be taken. On this statement, rukka was prepared and case was got registered by the police u/s 364A of IPC.
DD no.2 was also recorded regarding the missing of Ashish Jindal and for search of the person, which was handed over to HC Labh Singh. DD No. 6A was also recorded on 30/01/10, regarding the same facts.
After registration of the case, SI Mukesh Kumar along with his staff went to the house of kidnapped boy and as per the directions of the senior officer, some documents were prepared for necessary action. ID Caller was installed at the house of Ashish Jindal. Official of the Essar company was requested to note down the calls.
On 01/02/01, from the list of mobile phone number 9811250501, one call was found to be made from number 7472713 on 31/01/01 at about 3.15 pm. On inquiry, it was found to be made to one Kavita Aggarwal R/o BW, 88D, Shalimar, Delhi. On inquiry, she disclosed that she had made a call from that phone at A-12, DA flats , Shindhora Kalan, Shakti Nagar to her nephew Siddarth Jain. Thereafter, SI Mukesh Kumar along with police party reached there and apprehended Siddarth Jain from whose possession one visiting card in which the name and mobile number of Ashish Jindal was written and one golden colour ring -:5:- were recovered. Accused Sidharth Jain made his disclosure statement.
On the pointing out of accused Siddarth Jain, SI Mukesh Kumar with police team reached at C-3/32, Keshav Puram i.e. at the in laws house of his brother Abhinav Jain, where Ashish Jindal was found. They got him released. There one Nisha, her sister Rajni and Rajnesh @ Girish were arrested. From the possession of Nisha, some intoxicant and syringe and golden ring of Ashish Jindal were recovered. From the possession of Rajni, shoes, shirt and one golden colour ring of Ashish Jindal were recovered and from the possession of Rajnesh, one wrist watch of Ashish Jindal was recovered.
On interrogation, it was revealed that accused Ravi Bihari and Abhinav Jain had gone to deliver the ransom letter at the house of Maternal Uncle of Ashish Jindal i.e. Sunil Bansal at sector-15, Rohini, Delhi. One team was sent to search them and they apprehended accused Ravi Bihari from sector-15, Rohini, Delhi from whose possession, one desi katta and four live cartridges were recovered. They got a separate case registered against Ravi Bihari in PS Prashant Vihar.
Accused Abhinav Jain slipped away from Sector-15, Rohini, but he was apprehended from his rented room at Tri Nagar, along with motorcycle no. DL-8SY-6691. From his possession, one desi katta and -:6:- four live cartridges were recovered for which separate case was registered in PS Keshav Puram.
IO of both these cases reached at C-3/32, Keshav Puram with the accused persons where SI Mukesh Kumar arrested both of them in this case. From the possession of accused Ravi Bihar, one mobile phone and one golden colour ring of Ashish Jindal were recovered and from the possession of accused Abhinav Jain, one purse of Ashish Jindal containing I Card of Ashish Jindal and one golden colour chain were recovered. All the articles were identified by Ashish Jindal at the spot and he also identified the accused persons.
On the pointing out of accused Ravi Bihari, a letter was also recovered from the window of house of Maternal Uncle of Ashish Jindal form sector-15, Rohini, Delhi. Statement of witnesses were recorded.
Remaining accused persons i.e. mother in law Kanta, father in law Nanak Chand, friend Ramesh, Naveen, Chandrika @ Raju, Balwinder @ Billa and Kailash were not traceable. Santro Car of Ashish Jindal was also not recovered. PC remand of accused Ravi Bihari and Ashish Jindal was taken by HC Ramesh and accused Ravi Bhiari led the police party to Bihar, but no clue was found. Recovered mobile phone was sent to FSL for fingerprints. TIP of ring of Ashish Jindal, recovered from accused Siddarth Jain, was also got conducted which was duly -:7:- identified by Ashish Jindal.
NBWs of remaining seven accused persons were obtained. Accused Naveen was apprehended from his house on 31/03/01 from Bihar and after Transit Remand, he was brought to Delhi on 01/04/01 and was formally arrested in this case on 02/04/01 by SI Mukesh Kumar. He was put to TIP on 16/04/01 and was identified by Ashish Jindal. Proceedings, were conducted u/s 82/83 Cr.PC against remaining accused persons. Sections 328/120B/34 of IPC were added.
Site plan of the place from where Ashish Jindal was recovered was prepared. Site plan of rented room of Abhinav Jindal and Nisha was also prepared. Site plan of the place was also prepared from where Ashish Jindal was kidnapped. Call details from mobile phone company were also taken. Rs.5300/- were also recovered from accused Ravi Bihari which were seized by preparing memo.
Accused Nisha was medically examined. Personal search of accused Ravi Bihari, Abhinav Jain, Rajnesh were taken. Accused Rajnesh, Nisha, Siddarth Jain, Rajni, Ravi Bihari and Abhinav Jain were arrested. Personal search of accused Naveen was also taken.
Accused Naveen, Nisha, Rajni, Rajnesh, Abhinav Jain, Ravi Bhiari and Siddarth Jain made disclosure statements. Medical examination of Ashish Jindal was also got conducted. -:8:-
Record regarding the repair of santro car from Hans Hyundai, Bawana was also taken. Accused Balwinder and Kailash refused to join the TIP proceedings on the ground that their photos were taken and were shown to the witnesses. Supplementary chargeshet was filed against the accused Nanak chand and Kanta, who surrendered before the then Ld MM. They were arrested in this case. They also refused to join the TIP and have not given any reason not to join the TIP. Both accused Nanak chand and Kanta made disclosure statement. They also pointed out a room, where Ashish Jindal was kept.
Supplementary chargesheet against accused Balwinder and Kailash were also filed who was earlier declared Proclaimed offender and who were apprehended by police of PS Saraswati Vihar in FIR no.51/02 and 52/02 u/s 25 of Arms Act. They both were arrested by SI Mukesh Kumar in the court premises and were produced before the concerned Court. They were arrested in this case. They also made disclosure statement and pointed out the place, where Ashish Jindal was kept, after his kidnapping. Both these accused were also put to TIP, but they refused to join the TIP. It was disclosed by accused Kailash that he along with Ramesh and his accomplice i.e. Ravi Bihari, Rajnesh @ Girish, Balwinder @ Billa, Naveen, Raju @ Chandrika, Abhinav Jain, Siddarth Jain, Nisha wife of Abhinav, Rajni, Mother of Nisha namely Kanta and -:9:- father Nanakchand kidnapped Ashish Jindal in his santro car no.DL-8CE- 9746. He further disclosed that on 30/01/10, he along with Raju @ Chandrika, Naveen and Kanta were sent to Bihar for selling Santro Car no. DL-8CF-9746. Police remand of accused Kailash was taken and he led the police party to Patna, but could not identified the road of Dhaba, so the santro car could not recovered.
After completion of the investigation, chargesheet and supplementary chargesheet were filed u/s 364A/328/120B/34 of IPC.
Case was committed to the Court of Sessions and was received on 28/09/01. After finding a prima facie case, charges u/s 120B, section 328/120B/34 of IPC, section 364/120B/34 of IPC were framed against the accused Sidharth Jain, Ravi Bihari, Abhinav Jain, Rajnesh @ Girish, Naveen Kumar, Smt Nisha, Smt Kanta and Nanak Chand to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Charges u/s 120B of IPC, section 328/120B/34 and 364A/120B/34 were framed against accused Balwinder Singh @ Billa @ Balbir Singh and Kailash.
To prove its case, prosecution has examined PW1 to PW32 in all.
Statements of accused Siddarth Jain, Nisha, Nanak Chand, Kanta, Abhinav Jain, Naveen, Balwinder and Kailash were recorded. -:10:- They all have denied the case of the prosecution and submitted that this is a false case and they have been falsely implicated in this case.
In defence, accused Siddarth Jain has examined DW1 Manoj Kumar. Accused Naveen has examined DW2 Sachinder Kumar Singh. Accused Abhinav Jain has examined DW-3, Subhash Chander I have heard Ld defence counsels for accused persons and also heard Ld APP for State and also gone through the depositions of the witnesses and material placed on record by the prosecution.
Kidnapped person i.e. Ashish Jindal has been examined as PW4. He has stated that on 29/01/01, he left his house at about 10.00/10.30 am with his brother Amit Jindal. He dropped Amit Jindal at his ship in Pitampura and then he went to house of his maternal uncle in Sector-3, Rohini. He had given his Santro car to the workshop of Hyundai in sector-17, Rohini and at about 11.00 am, he went to the workshop to pick up his car. The job was not completed and the concerned person asked him either to wait for 2/3 hours or come later on. He waited in the workshop itself. The car was delivered to him at about 2.30 pm. Some damaged parts of the car were also received and he left those damaged parts in the office of his maternal uncle in sector-17 itself. He alone had gone to the office of his maternal uncle to leave damaged parts there. From sector-17, he had to go to sector-3, where marriage of his cousin -:11:- was to be performed.
There was a secluded place in between sector 17 and 16, Rohini. He reached in that portion of the road at about 3.30 pm. A white maruti 800 came from behind, overtook him and stopped in front of his car. Four persons, who had their faces covered were in that maruti. Three out of those four persons came out while one continued sitting on the driving seat. All the three persons quarrelled with him and then two of them sat on rear seat and one of them placed pistol like object on his temple. Then the third person forced him to shift to side seal and sat on the driving seat himself of his car. One of the person, who was on the rear seat put a piece of cloth on his face having some sedative and he become unconscious. When he regained some consciousness, he found himself sitting in a police station, but he does not know which PS that was. From there, he was taken to PHQ, where his parents came and from PHQ, he was taken to PS Bawana and then he came back to his house. Later on he came to know that he had regained consciousness after three days. He does not know what happened during those three days. He cannot identify any of the persons, who had come in Maruti car. He does not know where he was kept during those three days, so he cannot say if he was kept in any house or not. When he had regained consciousness, he had found gold ring and wrist watch with gold chain, -:12:- his purse and mobile phone missing. He was carrying Rs.5000-6000 with him and those were also found missing. Those currency notes were in the denomination of Rs.100/- each. He was beaten up only when he was kidnapped and not later on. He has further stated that kidnappers had not asked him to talk to his family members or his sister Parul during those three days.
He has further stated that he did not know any person by name of Siddarth. They have a shop at Tank Road, but no person by name of Sidharth ever acted as their commission agent. He has seen the letter Ex.PW4/A. He has admitted that same was in his hand and bear his signatures at point A. The letter was got written by police from him at PS. He has seen the folding calender Ex.PW4/B. The entry regarding his telephone number is in his hand at point 'A'. None of the kidnappers was ever arrested by the police in his presence. He has also seen his gold ring later on, which was identified by him in the Court. He had identified his wrist watch, gold chain and mobile phone at PS. The currency notes which he was carrying were never shown to him by police and were never identified by him. He has identified his signatures on seizure memo of wrist watch Ex. PW4/C, on seizure memo of syringe, injection and chain Ex. PW4/D, on the seizure memo of shoes, shirt and ring Ex.PW4/E, on the seizure memo of Currency notes of Rs.5300/- -:13:- Ex.PW4/F and seizure memo of mobile phone and of ring is Ex.PW2/G, on seizure memo of purse and chain Ex.PW4/H, on Ex. PW4/J i.e. seizure memo of letter.
He has further admitted his signatures on arrest memo Ex. PW4/K, Ex.PW4/L, Ex.PW4/M, Ex.PW4/N and Ex.PW4/P and on Ex.PW4/Q and personal search memos of Ex.PW4/R, Ex.PW4/S, Ex.PW4/T, Ex.PW4/U, Ex.PW4/V. He has further admitted his signatures on the disclosure statements Ex. PW4/W, Ex. PW4/W1, Ex.PW4/W2, PW4/W3 and Ex.PW4/W4. He has further stated that number of his mobile is 9811250501 and it was of ESSAR company. He has also further stated that nothing was recovered by police in his presence. When, he was kidnapped, he was wearing blue colour jean and fawn colour shirt. He was wearing brown shoes of Lee Cooper. He was carrying black colour leather purse, containing his driving license and some documents. He was wearing only one gold ring, but he was not wearing any chain. He was wearing wrist watch with gold colour chain, but he does not remember its name. Ring, which he was wearing, was of gold coin. He has identified his shirt as Ex.P1, pair of shoes as ExP2, which he was wearing, when he was kidnapped. He further identified mobile phone which he was carrying at the time of incident as Ex.P4, wrist watch as Ex.P5 and the gold ring as Ex.P6, both of them he was -:14:- wearing at the time of incident.
Purse Ex.P3 has been identified by the witness which he was carrying at the time of incident. He has not identified the gold chain, which was in the purse Ex.P3. He has also not identified the gold ring. He has identified the currency notes (53 x 100) part of the money, which he was carrying at the time of occurrence collectively as Ex.P11. He has not identified three ampules of compose, one ampules of fortwin and one ampule of Pentazam, one syringe contained in pouch and has stated that these were not recovered in his presence. He has further stated that ransom letter was also not recovered in his presence.
This witness has been cross examined by Ld APP as he was suppressing the truth. In the cross examination conducted by Ld APP, he has stated that police never recorded his statement. He has denied his statement recorded u/s 161 of Cr.Pc in total and has been confronted with Ex. PW4/Z. He has denied that on 26/01/0, he along with his sister Anjali, his brother in law Nitin and his brother Ashish Goel had gone to Appu Ghar and in the way Ashish desired to drink bear, but since liquor shops were closed on that day, they stopped at Majnu Ka Tila for buying bear, there accused Sidharth met him and he managed to get them one bottle of bear. He has further denied that accused Sidharth talked to him about business and requested him to supply goods from his tank road -:15:- shop, so that he can earn his livelihood by selling articles on pavement, to which he had agreed and gave his visiting card to him. He has further denied that on 29/01/01, accused Sidharth Jain had telephoned him at no. 7026826, but he was in bathroom at that time and telephone was attended by his sister Parul. At about 10.30 am, again Sidharth telephoned him and desired to meet him for some urgent work, but he told him that he was not available on that day, because daughter of his uncle was to be married, and on the request of Sidharth, he gave his mobile number to him. He has been confronted with Ex.PW4/Z, where it has been recorded so.
He has admitted that their Santro Car no. DL-8C-F-9746, of Silver Grey Colour was damaged in an accident and that was left in the workshop of Hans Hyndui, Bawana road, near Delhi Engineering College for repair since 21/01/01. He has further admitted that he had gone to collect the car from worshop on 29/01/01, but the car was not fully repaired and he had to wait.
He has denied that he had received a telephone call from Sidharth in the workshop itself on mobile and he asked him to meet him immediately as he had urgent work. But he told him that he had to go somewhere and he should meet him some other time and when Sidharth insisted, then he told him that he was in the workshop of Hans Hyundai, -:16:- Bawana Road, waiting for his car. He has been confronted with his statement Ex. PW4/Z, where it is recorded so.
He has admitted that the car was delivered to him at about 3.30 pm, but he denied that when he came on the road, outside workshop, then accused Siddharth came and sat in his car. He has also denied that he left the damaged parts in the office of his uncle and accused Sidharth took him to Tri Nagar via Ashok Vihar to show his place of work. He has further denied that on reaching Tri Nagar, accused Sidharth told him that he wanted him, to meet his brother and sister in law and at about 4.30 pm, Sidharth took him to the first floor of his house, where in a room, accused Abhinav, Ravi, Rajnesh, Nisha and Naveen were present and they all on his reaching in the room, shut the door. He has also denied that accused Ravi Bihari (since P.O.) threatened him with katta and then tied his hands and foot. He has further denied that accused persons snatched his three gold rings, Ex.P6, P8 and Ex.P9, two gold chains, Ex.P-10 and P7, wrist watch Ex.P5, mobile phone Ex.P4 and purse Ex.P3 and Rs.6000/-, out of which Rs.5300/- are Ex.P11. He also denied that thereafter accused Ravi administered two doze of injection with ampules injection Ex.P-12 after taking from Nisha and he became unconscious. He has denied that when he regained his senses, he found himself in another house, where -:17:- all the accused persons including accused Chandrika @ Raju and Ramesh (both P.O.) were present. He has further denied that in that house also accused Ravi and Abhinav threatened him with katta and told that if he raised alarm or try to escape then they will shoot him. He has further denied that accused persons made telephone call to his house from his mobile and demanded ransom of Rs.25 lacs and threatened that if money was not paid, then he would be killed. He has been confronted with Ex.PW4/Z, where it is recorded so. He has also denied that he talked to Parul at the instance of Ravi and he told that he should be saved otherwise these people will kill him. He has further denied that he was kept near window in the house and from a board outside, he came to know that he was kept in the area of Lawrence Road. He has further denied that accused Ravi, Abhinav, Sidharth and their friends used to leave the house for making calls by turn and in their absence, Nisha, Rajni, Ranjnesh and parents of Nisha kept a watch on him and all the accused used to threatened him that if ransom money was not paid then, he would not be free and will be killed and he was given food barely sufficient to live. He has further denied that accused Rajni and Rajnesh etc got his shirt and shoes removed and gave him an old worn out shirt and on 01/02/2001, Ravi and Abhinav made him to write a letter to his maternal uncle Sunil Bansal threatening him with katta. He has been -:18:- confronted with all these facts with Ex. PW4/Z, where there are written. He has admitted that ransom letter was in his hand, but he has voluntarily stated that it was got written from him in police station. He has also denied that accused persons used to beat him and give slaps and punches during day time. He has further denied that on 01/02/1001, police had brought accused Sidharth, who was identified by him and accused Rajnesh, Nisha and Rajni were arrested, while they were keeping watch on him in the house. He has been confronted from Ex.PW4/Z where there are mentioned.
PW4 has further denied that a gold ring Ex.P6, visiting Card cum calender Ex.PW4/B was recovered from Sidharth and ampules with syringe in a pouch Ex.P13 and gold Chand Ex.P-10, were recovered from accused Nisha. He has further denied that wrist watch Ex.P5 was recovered from accused Rajnesh and gold ring Ex.P8, his mobile phone Ex.P4 and Rs.5300/- Ex.P11 were recovered from accused Ravi. He has further denied that his purse Ex.P3 and gold chain Ex.P7 were recovered from accused Abhinav. He has further denied that accused Ex.P2, shirt Ex.P1 and gold ring Ex.P9 were recovered from accused Rajni or at her instance. PW4 has been confronted with his statement Ex.PW4/Z, where all these facts are mentioned.
In nutshell, PW4 has not identified the accused persons as -:19:- the same persons, who kidnapped him. He has also not supported the case of the prosecution that he was kept in room at C3/32, Keshav Puram, Delhi. He has also not identified the accused persons which according to the prosecution were keeping watch on him in the said house. He has also not identified the accused Sidharth Jain, who was brought there. He has also not stated that there was any recovery from the said room by the police rather he has stated that when he regained his consciousness, he found himself sitting in the PS. PW4 has stated that when he regained his consciousness, he found missing his gold ring, wrist watch, purse, golden chain, mobile phone and Rs.5/6 thousand. He has also denied that kidnappers had asked him to talk his family or his sister Parul, during those three days. He has also denied that accused Siddarth Jain was known to him, prior to the incident. He has admitted a ransom letter Ex. PW4/A, but has stated that he wrote the same at the instance of the police. He has admitted folding calender Ex.PW4/B where his telephone number was written in his handwriting. He has identified his gold ring in the court and has identified wrist watch, gold chain, mobile phone in the PS. He has admitted his signatures on the seizure memos, but has denied that these articles were recovered from the accused persons in his presence and he had identified these articles at the time of recovery of the same from the accused persons. -:20:-
PW4 has identified his shirt, pair of shoes as Ex.P1 and Ex.P2, mobile phone as Ex.P4, wrist watch as Ex.P5, gold ring P6 and purse as P3 along with currency notes Ex.P11. He has denied the fact that ampules with syringe were recovered in his presence.
So in all, he has supported the case of the prosecution only to the extent that on 29/01/10, he had gone to take his car from the work shop of Hans Hyndai in sector-17 at about 11.00 am after dropping his brother Amit Jindal at his shop, and he waited there for 2-3 hours and when he was coming back at about 3.30 pm, he was kidnapped by four persons, who had covered their faces and he was made unconscious by those persons and after about 3-4 days, he regained his consciousness and found himself sitting in the police station. He found his gold ring, wrist watch, gold chain,mobile phone, purse with cash of 5-6 thousand missing. He has identified, shirt, shoes, gold ring, wrist watch, purse, mobile phone and cash of Rs.5300/- but has not supported the case of the prosecution that these articles were recovered from the accused persons in his presence. Although, he has admitted his signatures on the seizure memos.
PW1 has stated that he is running shop under the name and style of Jindal Garments at Madhuban Chowk, Pitam Pura at E-D, 60A, PW4 is his elder brother, who runs shop in the name and style CANPY -:21:- in Gali No.4, Tank Road. On 29/01/01, his brother has taken him in the morning at Madhuban Chowk and after dropping him , he left for Hans Hyndai situated at Sector 16, Bawana, where their car bearing no. DL- 8CF-9746 make Santro was given for repair. His brother Ashish Jindal did not return to the house till evening. So he made inquiries from all the friends of Ashish and also made inquiries from Hans Hyundai. He was informed that their car was taken away. Ashish did not return in the night also.
PW1 has further stated that on 20/01/01, a telephone call was received at their residence, which was attended by his sister, who told them that call was from kidnappers and the caller had told her that their boy was with them and they should pay Rs.30 lakhs to them. They received similar call at different times, but he had not attended those calls and every time those called were attended by Parul. He made complaint to the police, which is Ex.PW1/A. He has further state that he did not receive any telephone from Ashish on 29/01/01. PW1 has also resiled from his statement, so he was cross examined by Ld APP.
In the cross examination, conducted by Ld APP, he has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been confronted with his statement Ex.PW1/A. In the cross examination, PW1 has stated that his parents did not attend any calls from the kidnappers. He has been -:22:- confronted with his statement Ex.PW1/A wherein it was recorded that when Ashish went to show room of Hans Hyundai, his cousin was also accompanying him. He has also been confronted that his statement Ex.PW1/A, wherein it is not recorded that all the telephone calls were received by his sister Parul. He has denied that his complaint Ex.PW1/A was false complaint.
So from the deposition of PW1, it is clear that he has supported PW4 only to the extent that PW4 dropped him at that time and thereafter PW4 went to the showroom of Hans Hyundai at Bawana to take back their car no. DL-8CF-9746, which was given their for repair. PW1 has not attended any ransom call made at their house and these were attended by his sister Parul, who told them that kidnappers were demanding Rs.30 lakhs to release Ashish Jindal.
Let us see what Parul has stated before the Court.
She has been examined as PW3. She has stated that on 30/01/01, she was living with her parents in H. No.100, Anand Vihar, Pitampura. Ashish Jindal is her younger brother and Amit Jindal is also his younger brother. She has further stated that on 29/01/01, Ashish Jindal had left the house during noon time and he did not return till late in the night. She was worried and they searched for him during whole night, but they could not find him. She had not received any telephone at about -:23:- 10.00 am, on 29/01/10 from anybody. Then police was informed, but she does not remember, who had informed the police. Police asked them to lodge FIR after 24 hours. So FIR was lodged on 30-01-2001. Police had come for investigation and after three days, information was received that her brother Ashish Jindal was found. Ashish had returned to his house next day of his recovery and met her. During the period, Ashish was missing, she had not received any telephone call, any threat or any demand from any one. She had not received any call from any one regarding Ashish. Ashish never talked to him on telephone during the period, he was missing.
She has also not supported the case of the prosecution, so she was cross examined by Ld APP. She has denied that her statement was recorded by SI Mukesh on 30/01/2001. She has also denied that she told to the police that on 29/01/01, a telephone call was received from one Sidharth Jain for Ashish and at that time Ashish was in bathroom. She has also denied that the said boy disconnected the call by saying that he will call later on. She has further stated that after about half an hour that boy again rang up and at that time, she was present near Ashish. She has also denied that Ashish, on hearing the telephone called Sidharth and acted in a manner as if he was trying to recollect, who was Sidharth. She has also denied that Ashish told -:24:- Sidharth that he will not be able to come on that day as marriage of daughter of Maternal Uncle was to be performed.
She has also denied that Ashish gave his mobile number and disconnected the phone. She has also denied that she made inquiries from Ashish and he told her that Sidharth wanted to meet him for some work and he did not tell anything else. She has also denied that she told to the police that after kidnapping of her brother Ashish, telephone calls were received for ransom and initially Rs.30 lacs were demanded as ransom. She has also denied that on 30/01/01, many telephone calls for ransom were received and from ID caller, she came to know that the telephone calls were made from mobile phone of her brother Ashish having number 9811250501, but she has admitted that the telephone number of her brother was 9811250501. She has also denied that once the kidnappers had allowed her to talk to Ashish and Ashish while weeping had asked to save him, otherwise he will be killed. She has admitted that the police was recording the conversation on the telephone, but she was not present in the room, where recording was being done.
So, PW3 has neither supported PW1 nor PW4 to the fact that whether she attended any telephone calls which were made for Ashish Jindal. She has also not supported the fact that Ashish Jindal later on -:25:- after coming out from bathroom talked with Sidharth Jain and gave him his mobile number. She has also not supported that she received ransom calls from the kidnappers, who were demanding Rs.30 lacs to release Ashish Jindal. She has also not supported that she told about ransom calls to PW1 and during his period, she only was receiving the ransom call.
To further corroborate, prosecution has examined PW18 Virender Dhankad, who has stated that in January 2001, he was working as Security Guard in Hans Hyundai workshop at CN-35, Sector-17, Rohini. On that that day, a Santro Car no. DL-8CF-9746 was received in the workshop for repair/ service and the same left the premises on 29/01/01, at 3.40 pm. Entry regarding in and out of the vehicle from the workshop was made in the register kept at the gate. He has proved the photocopy of Ex.PW18/A, which in his handwriting. On 30/01/10, copy of the entries were seized by police. This witness has not been cross examined by Ld defence counsels for the accused persons in any manner.
To further corroborate, PW32 Sh. Salekh Chand Sharma has been examined. He has been deputed by Hans Hyundai, workshop Manager. He has brought the original gate register and job card in respect of Vehicle no. DL-8CF-9746. On 20.12.2000, the said car, came -:26:- in their workshop at 12.20 pm and after repairing, it left on 27/12/2000 at about 18.35 Pm. Copy of entry is proved as Ex.PW32/C. He has also produced the original gate register pertaining to entry dated 21/01/01, the above said car was brought at about 14.00 pm and after repairing the vehicle left on 29/01/01 at 15.40 pm. Entry in this respect is proved as Ex. PW32/B. He has also produced the invoice/cash memos regarding the repair of said car. Copy of the said invoice is proved as Ex.PW32/C and copy of Job card dated 21/01/01 is Ex.PW32/D. Nothing came out from his cross examination to disbelieve his testimony in any manner.
To further corroborate, prosecution has examined PW2 Sunil Dutt Bansal. He has stated that his nephew is doing the business of Rahul Properties at Bawana Road which is in the name of his wife. Ashish Jindal is his nephew. On 29/01/01, at about 4.00 pm, he was present at Rahul Properties when Ashish Jindal came there in a Santro Car. He was alone at that time. He had come after getting his car repaired from nearby workshop. Ashish Jindal placed damaged parts of the car in his office and then left.
This witness has not supported the prosecution case, so he was examined by Ld APP. In his cross examination, he has not supported the case of the prosecution regarding the fact that when -:27:- Ashish came there, one more person was also accompanying him. He has also denied that he made enquiries from Ashish Jindal about the said person and Ashish Jindal had told him that he was known to him. He has also denied that Ashish had left in his car with that person. He has also denied that Ashish Jindal was with accused Sidharth Jain , when he had come to his office in Bawana.
So, he has not supported the case of prosecution regarding the identity of accused Sidharth Jain or that Sidharth Jain was accompanying Ashish Jindal.
PW5 is Rambir. He has stated that he is employee of Rahul Properties situated at Bawana Road. One Sunil Bansal is the owner of the Rahuul Property. He has further stated that on 29/01/01, at about 2.30/3.00 pm, he was present at the office, Ashish Jindal, who was known to him earlier, came at that time to place some spare parts/junk of car, in the office. He left after placing the articles. He has further stated that Ashish had come in a Santro Car and at that time he was alone.
Again this witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been cross examined by Ld APP. In cross examination, he has not supported the case of prosecution about the person, who was accompanying Ashish Jindal and the fact that the said person was accused Siddharth Jain. He has denied that PW2 Sunil -:28:- Bansal had asked Ashish Jindal about the said boy and Ashish Jindal had told that said boy was known to him. He has been confronted with his statement Ex.PW5/A. He has also denied that Ashish left the office in the same car with the said person. He has also been confronted with his previous statement Ex. PW5/A. So from the deposition of PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW18 along with PW32, prosecution has been able to prove the fact only that on 29/01/01, Ashish Jindal left his house with his brother Amit Jindal. He dropped his brother at his shop. Thereafter, he went to workshop of Hans Hyundai at Bawana Road and collected his car which was given there for repair. On the way, he dropped some spare parts of his car in the office of Rahul Property at Bawana Road and he was alone in his car. From the deposition of PW18 and PW32, prosecution has been able to prove that car no. DL-8CF-9746, was given for repair at work shop of Hans Hyundai, Bawana and it was collected on 29/01/01.
Prosecution has also been able to prove from the deposition of PW4 that at about 3.30 pm, when he reached at the secluded place in between Sector 16 and 17 at Rohini, one Maruti Van came from behind and over took him. Four persons, who had covered their faces kidnapped him and he was made unconscious by them and he regained his consciousness after about 3 days in the PS and found his gold ring, wrist -:29:- watch, Purse, mobile phone and cash of Rs.5-6 thousand missing.
Prosecution has been able to prove identity of gold ring, wrist watch, purse, mobile phone, cash of Rs.5300/-, shirt and shoes of Ashish Jindal by him before the Court and the fact that PW4 also identified his gold ring before the court during TIP.
IO of the case is PW30 SI Mukesh Kumar. He has stated that on 30/01/2001, he was posted at PS Bawana PP Shahbad Dairy. On that day, duty officer of PS Bawana gave him a copy of DD no.2 PP Shakti Vihar and DD no.6A PS Saraswati Vihar along with statement of Amit Jindal Ex. PW1/A. Copy of DD no.6A is Ex.PW30/A. To prove the DD no.2A, prosecution has examined PW11 SI Rajesh Sharma. He has stated that on 30/01/2001, he was posted as Incharge PP Shakti Vihar, PS Saraswati Vihar. He has brought the original DD register. DD no.2 was recorded by Ct Ravinder. He has identified his handwriting and has proved the copy of DD as Ex.PW11/A. PW30 SI Mukesh Kumar has further stated that he brought the facts of DD entry to the knowledge of SHO and made endorsement on the statement of Amit Jindal i.e. Ex.PW30/B and got the case registered. He obtained the copy of FIR and original rukka from the Duty Officer.
PW15 HC Balkar Singh has corroborated PW30 and has -:30:- stated that on 30/01/01, he was posted at PS Bawana and was working as Duty Officer. On the basis of rukka, which was sent by SI Mukesh Kumar, he recorded the FIR of this case. He has produced the original register. He handed over the copy of FIR to Ct Janeshwar for handing over the same to the IO. He has also sent the special report to the concerned MM and other higher officials through Special Messenger. Copy of FIR is Ex. PW15/A. Nothing came out from their cross examination to disbelieve the testimonies of PW11 and PW15.
PW30 SI Mukesh Kumar has further stated that thereafter on the instructions of the senior officers, raiding parties were prepared having its camp office at PS Saraswati Vihar. He went to workshop of Santro car at Bawana and recorded statements of the persons, who had lastly seen the vehicle no. DL-8CF-9746. Thereafter, he went to the house of Ashish Jindal and made inquiries from Parul Jindal, Satish Bansal and friends of Ashish Jindal. He came to know that mobile no. 9811250501 was with the kidnapped boy Ashish Jindal. He made request to ESSAR Company for keeping this number on surveillance. The MTNL phone at the house of the victim was also kept on observation.
On 01/02/01, ESSAR phone company gave him details of -:31:- mobile phone no. 9811250501 from 13/01/01 to 31/02/01, which he seized. The call details are Ex.PW10/A. PW10 Gurpreet Singh, Executive Legal Hutchison ESSAR Telcom Ltd has stated that he has brought the summoned record. As per record, on 29/01/10 from 13.50 to 15.00 hours, call was made from no.117109081 to mobile no. 9811250501. On 31/01/2001, at 11.23 hours a telephone call was made from 919811250501 to land line no.0117026826 and the duration was 846 seconds. On the same day at about 17.17 hours, telephone call was made from 919811250501 to landline no.0117219131 and duration was 51 second. On the same day, at about 17.18 hours a telephone call was made from same telephone number to landline no. 0117219131 and duration was 2 second. Again, on the same day at about 16.39 hours, a call was made from same number to another cell no. 09811215400 and duration was 29 seconds. He has proved the computerised copy of the same as Ex.PW10/A. He has further stated that the Cell ID no. 11972 was of sector-3, Rohini and Cell ID number 11471 was of the area of Rajouri Garden. That the cell ID no.12152 was of the area of Shastri Nagar and the Cell ID no.11413 was of the area of Sarai Rohilla. That the cell ID no.11441 was of the area of Lawrence Road.
So according, to his deposition last call, which was made on -:32:- 31/01/01, at about 16.39 hours was made from mobile no. 9811250501 to another mobile no. 09811215400 was made from the area of lawrence Road.
Ld. Defence counsels have contended that it has not been investigated as to who were the owners of the landline number on which calls were made on 29 /01/10 and on 31/01/01 and it is also not investigated as to who was owner of the mobile no. 09811215400.
Ld Defence counsel has further contended that mobile phone no. 9911250501 is of cash card as stated by PW10 in his cross examination, who has further stated that he has no record of these calls. So neither the landline number nor mobile phone number have been connected with the accused persons in any manner.
PW30 SI Mukesh Kumar has further stated that on analysis of the call details on 31/01/01, one telephone call of landline no. 7472713 was made and on inquiry, he came to know that this phone call was made to one Kavita Aggarwal. After obtaining her address, he went to the house of Kavita Aggarwal and interrogated her. She told that she had come to her bhabhi Lalita at 3.11 pm and further told that Lalita had talked to her on the dialing by Sidharth. He obtained the address of Lalita i.e. A-12, Sindhora Kalan and reached there and knocked the door. Door was opened by mother of the Sidharth i.e. Lalita. He gave his -:33:- introduction to her as a friend of Sidharth. She called Sidharth from inside by calling his name. Sidharth came out of the house and on seeing him, he rushed back inside the house. He along with his staff apprehended accused Siddharth. He interrogated him. Earlier he kept misleading, but when he quoted the telephone details, he broke and gave him the true facts. He arrested accused Sidharth Jain, after being satisfied about his involvement vide arrest memo Ex. PW4/M and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW20/B. He took search of the accused and from his right pocket of his pant, one golden ring having coin top was recovered. One photo visiting card having name of Ashish Jindal and his mobile phone number was also recovered. He sealed the ring after preparing pullanda with the seal of MKS and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW20/A. The visiting card with calender is Ex. PW4/B. PW20 Ct Anand Kumar has corroborated PW30 SI Mukesh Kumar. He has stated that on 01/02/01, he was posted at PP Shahabad Dairy, PS Bawana, and he joined the investigation of this case. He with IO i.e. PW30 SI Mukesh Kumar and other staff reached B.W.-88/D, Shalimar Bagh. There Kavita Aggarwal met IO and IO recorded statement of Kavita Aggarwal. Then they went to A-12, DDA Flats, Sindhora Kalan, Shakti Nagar. IO SI Mukesh knocked at the door of the house and the door was opened by mother of Sidharth Jain. SI Mukesh, -:34:- told to mother of Sidharth Jain that he was friend of Sidharth and wanted to meet him, so mother of Sidharth Jain called Sidharth Jain by calling him. On the call of his mother, accused Sidharth Jain came out and then on seeing SI Mukesh Kumar went inside the house. Accused Sidharth Jain was apprehended and he was inquired. PW20 has also identified accused Sidharth Jain before the Court. He has further stated that from his search, one golden ring having coin and visiting card were recovered. That visiting car was alongwith the calender, on which mobile number of kidnapped boy was found mentioned. Golden ring and visiting card were seized vide memo Ex.PW20/A. Accused Sidharth Jain was arrested vide memo Ex.PW4/M and his formal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW20/B. Accused Sidharth Jain also made disclosure statement Ex.PW20/C. In pursuance of disclosure statement they went to C-3/32, Keshav Puram with accused Sidharth Jain.
PW20 Ct Anand Kumar has identified visiting card cum calender recovered from accused Sidharth as Ex.PW4/B, gold ring as Ex.P-6, which was recovered from accused Sidharth.
Ld defence counsel for accused Sidharth Jain has contended that PW20 Ct Anand Kumar cannot be believed as statement on Kavita Aggarwal was not recorded in his presence and even he does not know whether Kavita Aggarwal had given any statement or it was -:35:- recorded by IO at his own.
Ld Defence counsel has further contended that according to the cross of PW20, the door was opened by the mother of accused Sidharth and he has deposed falsely because mother of accused Sidharth cannot walk and remain always on wheel chair as she is suffering from paralysis and she always use clutches for walking.
Ld defence counsel has further contended that no specific mark of identification was put by the IO on the ring Ex.P6 as stated by PW30 SI Mukesh Kumar in his cross examination and visiting card cum calender was not sealed in the pullanda at that time. So recovery of ring and visiting card cum calender is doubtful from the possession of accused Sidharth Jain.
Ld defence counsel has further contended that even signatures of Lalita were not obtained on any memo or document prepared by IO. No public witness was called or joined the proceedings.
In my view, accused Sidharth Jain has not brought any document on record to show that his mother could not walk and remain always on wheel chair suffering from paralysis and use clutches for walking.
It has come in the cross examination of PW20 Ct Anand Kumar that Lalita was mother of accused Sidharth Jain, who has -:36:- corroborated with Ex.PW30 SI Mukesh Kumar and has stated that Kavita Aggarwal disclosed them about the name of Lalita.
PW20 Ct Anand Kumar has stated in the cross examination that Lalita was mother of accused Sidharth, so PW20 and PW30 can not be disbelieved in respect of arrest of accused Sidharth and recovery made from him.
PW30 SI Mukesh Kumar has also identified the gold ring with coin top which was recovered from accused Sidharth Jain as Ex.P6.
PW30 SI Mukesh Kumar has not been cross examined by Ld defence counsel regarding the arrest of accused Sidharth. Only suggestion has been given, which has been denied by PW30 that accused Sidharth Jain had not made any disclosure statement.
PW30 SI Mukesh Kumar has further stated that in furtherance of disclosure statement of accused Sidharth Jain, he rushed to flat no.C3/32, Keshav Puram and requested another team of police headed by Inspector S.K. Meena, who also reached at C3/32, Keshav Puram along with some lady police. When he reached at the above said flat, he knocked the door of the house. One lady opened the door, whose name, he came to know later on as Nisha and on seeing them, she rushed back inside the house. He entered the house along with staff. One boy was sitting on the ground in the room, who on inquiry gave his -:37:- name as Ashish Jindal. Accused Nisha and Rajnish were present in that house. They were apprehended. He recorded the disclosure statement of accused Sidharth Jain Ex.PW20/C. He handed over all the accused persons in the custody of staff members and he interrogated the victim Ashish Jindal and recorded his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC, who told him about the involvement of accused Ravi Bihari, Abhinav Jain, Nanad Chand and Kanta and their other accomplices Ramesh, Raju, kailash and Balivnder @ Billa. Ashish Jindal told him that Ravi Bihari and Abhinav Jain had gone to deliver the letter of ransom at the house of his maternal uncle Sunil Bansal at Sector-15, Rohini.
Another team headed by Inspector S.K. Meena, proceeded to sector-15, Rohini alongwith accused Sidharth Jain. He interrogated there accused Nisha, Rajni and Rajnesh. He has identified accused Nisha and Rajnish before the court. Accused Rajni was tried in juvenile court. He arrested accused Nisha and Rajni vide arrest memo Ex.PW4/L and Ex.PW4/N and accused Rajnish was arrested vide memo Ex.PW4/K and their personal searches were taken vide memo Ex. PW4/R, PW4/S and PW4/T. PW30 SI Mukesh Kumar has further stated that accused Nisha handed over to him one purse having one syringe and five -:38:- injections and one gold chain. Chain was identified by Ashish Jindal as his own. He put the recovered articles in the same purse and prepared pullanda and sealed with the seal of MKS and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/D. Accused Rajnish was having a watch on his wrist which was identified by Ashish Jindal belonging to him. He also prepared pullanda of the watch and sealed with the seal of MKS and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/C. Accused Rajni was wearing a ring in the middle finger of her right hand which was identified by Ashsih Jindal belonging to him. Accused Rajni produced the shoes and shirt of Ashish Jindal. These were identified by Ashish Jindal which were sealed with the seal of MKS and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/F. PW30 recorded the disclosure statement of accused persons, which are Ex.PW4/W1, W2 and W3.
To further corroborate, PW20 Ct Anand has stated that in furtherance of disclosure statement, they went to C-3/32, Keshav Puram with accused Sidharth Jain. Door of the said house was found closed. PW30 SI Mukesh Kumar, knocked at the door. It was opened by accused Nisha, to whom he correctly identified before the court. He has further stated that on seeing them, accused Nisha went inside the house shouting. ACP Meena, SI Mukesh, himself and some other members of raiding party followed Nisha inside the house. Ashish Jindal was found in a room in that house, who was identified by accused Sidharth Jain. SI -:39:- Mukesh Kumar recorded the statement of Ashish Jindal. Accused Rajni and accused Rajnesh were also found in the said house. They all were interrogated and they came to know that Abhinav Jindal and Ravi Bihari had gone to sector-15, Rohini to deliver ransom letter. So a separate team was sent to sector-15, Rohini.
PW20 Ct Anand Kumar has further stated that one leather purse was recovered from accused Nisha and on checking it was found containing one injection and 5 ampules. Accused Rrajnesh was found wearing a wrist watch, which was identified by Ashish Jindal as his own. Accused Rajni produced pair of shoes and one shirt, which were identified by Ashish Jindal as his own. One chain was also recovered from accused Nisha which was found kept in the purse in which injection was kept. All the articles recovered from different accused persons were sealed separately in pullandas with seal of MKS and were seized vide memo Ex.PW4/C, EX.PW4/D and Ex.PW4/E. To further corroborate, prosecution has examined PW12 HC Raj Kumar, who has stated that on 01/02/01, he was posted at PS Bawana and on that day, he along with Inspector S.K. Meena and other staff went to Keshav Puram at about 2.00 pm with accused Sidharth Jain. Accused Sidharth Jain led them to C-2/22, Keshav Puram. The door of that house was closed. Inspector S.K. Meena held nakabandi of -:40:- that house and knocked at the door of that house. One lady came out and on seeing police party, she shouted and went back inside the house. They came to know her name later on as Nisha.
They all went inside that house and found one boy was sitting in a corner, who was very much perplexed. Accused Rajni, whose name he came to know lateron, was keeping watch on that boy. Lady Ct Saroj Bala was also with them. Both Rajni and Nisha were interrogated and their disclosure statement were recorded and they disclosed that accused Abhinav and Ravi Bihari have gone to deliver letter to the Maternal Uncle of Ashish in Rohini. Ashish Bansal with Rajni, Nisha and Ld HC Saroj Bala was left at the spot and rest of the raiding party went to Sector-15, Rohini. Sidharth Jain accused was also with them.
PW16 Ct Jeet Singh has also deposed the same fact that on 01/02/2001, he was posted at PS Bawana and on that day, he alongwith Inspector S.K. Meena, Addl SHO, HC Raj Kumar, HC Satbir, HC Hazari Lal, WHC Saroj and Ct Rishi Raj and Ct Naresh were present at the camp office, Saraswati Vihar in search of a kidnapped boy Ashish Jindal. On receipt of secret information, all the members of the raiding party reached at House NO.C-3/32, Keshav Puram, from where Ashish Jindal was got released from the clutches of the accused persons and Inspector S.K. Meena, came to know that two accused namely Ravi Bihari and -:41:- Abhinav Jain had gone to Sector-15, Rohini to deliver a ransom letter to the maternal uncle of Ashish Jindal. Inspector S.K. Meena directed WHC Saroj to remain at H.NO.C-3/32 to guard the place of occurrence and they all went to sector-15, Rohini along with accused Sidharth Jain.
PW17 WHC Saroj Bala has also stated that on 01/02/01, she was posted at PS Bawana and on that day, SHO Inder Singh had formed a raiding party and at about 2.30/3.00 pm, message was received that lady police was required. So, she with Additional SHO Inspector S.K. Meena, HC Raj Kumar and HC Satvir reached at PS Keshav Puram and from there they reached at C-3/32, Keshav Puram. SI Mukesh Kumar with other raiding party met them at PS Keshav Puram and he informed them that as per secret information, kidnapped boy was kept in that house. On reaching H. No.C-3/32, ground floor, SI Mukesh knocked at the door. The door was opened by one Nisha. She has correctly identified accused Nisha before the court. Accused Nisha, on seeing them, ran inside a room and they also followed her. In the room, they found one boy Ashish Jindal was sitting. Accused Rajnesh and another girl Rajni were also present in that room. She has correctly identified accused Rajnesh before the Court.
Enquiries were made from Ashish Jindal. SI Mukesh recorded the statements of accused Nisha, Rajnish and Rajni. She -:42:- conducted the personal search of accused Nisha and Rajni and thereafter they were arrested vide memo Ex.PW4/L and Ex.PW4/N. Accused Rajnesh was found wearing wrist watch, which was identified by Ashish Jindal of his own. One purse was recovered from accused Nisha and it found containing a gold colour chain, one syringe and 4/5 injections of sedatives. Chain was identified by Ashsih Jindal as his own. Some clothes and shoes were also recovered, which were identified by Ashish Jindal as his own, from underneath the bed. After proceedings, she came back to PS with accused Nisha and Rajni.
PW 17 WHC Saroj Bala has identified the shirt as Ex.P1, shoes as Ex.P2, syringe and injections as Ex.P12, chain which was recovered from accused Nisha as Ex.P10 and a ring recovered from accused Rajni as Ex.P9.
Nothing came out from the cross examination of PW16 and PW17 to disbelieve their testimonies.
To further corroborate, prosecution has examined PW25 Ct Hazari Lal, who has stated that on 30/01/02, he was posted at PS Bawana. One boy Ashish Jindal was kidnapped and for his search a raiding party was formed consisting of Inspector S.K. Meena, HC Rraj Kumar, HC Satbir, Lady HC Saroj Bala, CT Jot Singh, Ct Rishi Raj and himself. The raiding party reached at PS Keshav puram and then they -:43:- went to house no. C-3/32, Keshav Puram along with some staff of PS Keshav Puram. Accused Sidharth Jain was also with them. The raiding party took position at H. No. C-3/32, Keshav Puram, ground floor. A member of raiding party knocked at the door. One girl inside the house opened the door. That girl shouted and the staff went inside the room. He did not go inside the house. PW25 has neither identified accused Sidharth Jain nor other accused persons except accused Ravi Bihari.
So from the depositions of all these witnesses, it has been corroborated that accused Sidharth Jain was arrested from his house and on his personal search, one ring having coin top and one visiting card cum calender were recovered. He led the police party to house no. C-3/32, Keshav Puram, Delhi. There kidnapped boy Ashish Jindal was found present and he was released. Accused Nisha, Rajni, Rajnesh were arrested. One purse having gold chain, one syringe and 4-5 ampules were recovered from accused Nisha. One shirt and pair of shoes were produced and recovered from accused Rajni. One wrist watch was recovered from accused Rajnesh. These were sealed in the parcels and were seized by IO.
As per information, received from these accused persons, PW12 HC Raj Kumar, PW16 Ct Jeet Singh, PW19 ASI Satvir Songh and PW25 Ct Hajari Lal went to sector-15, Rohini. PW12 HC Raj Kumar -:44:- has stated that when they were at the distance of about 100 yards of E- 2/2/18, then Sidharth pointed out towards accused Abhinav and Ravi Bihari. Both the accused were correctly identified by the witness. Accused Ravi Bihari was sitting on the driver seat of motorcycle and accused Abhinav Jain was sitting on pillion seat. The motorcycle was in start position and on seeing them, Abhinav got down from the motorcycle and was apprehended by them, when he was trying to run away and accused Ravi Bihari managed to escape. From search of accused Abhinav Jain, country made pistol and four live cartridges were recovered from right pocket of pant of Abhinav Jain and katta was recovered from left dub of the pant. HC Satbir was directed to investigate the case under Arms Act against Abhinav Jain. Accused Abhinav Jain was interrogated and then Abhinav led them to Tri Nagar. They reached there at house no.240, and the motorcycle on which accused Ravi Bihari managed to escaped was found parked in ground floor. They went to second floor of the house and Inspector S.K. Meena got opened the door. Accused Ravi Bihari was found present inside the room. On search of accused Ravi Bihari a country made pistol loaded and three live cartridges were recovered from his possession. He took over the investigation under Arms Act against accused Ravi Bihari. He prepared the tehrir and got the case registered and after completion of -:45:- investigation, he filed the challan before the court concerned.
In the cross examination conducted by Ld APP, he has identified accused Sidharth and Nisha along with accused Rajni and has also stated the number of motorcycle on which accused Ravi Bihari managed to escape was DL-4SY-6691. He has further admitted that in Rohini, accused Ravi Bihari was apprehended and accused Abhinav was managed to escape on the motorcycle. He has further admitted that one country made pistol loaded and four live cartridges were recovered from accused Ravi Bihari and investigation was conducted by HC Satvir. He has further admitted that Inspector S.K. Meena had directed that after sending rukka, HC Satvir should reached Keshav Puram with accused Ravi Bihari and they along with accused Sidharth Jain reached at H. No.2240/172, Tri Nagar, where at first floor, accused Abhinav Jain was apprehended at the pointing out of accused Sidharth Jain and from his possession, one loaded katta and three live cartridges were recovered.
PW16 Ct Jeet Singh has stated that accused Sidharth Jain pointed out towards two boys, who have started their motorcycle at sector-15, Rohini, as Ravi Bihari and Abhinav Jain. Accused Ravi Bihari has been correctly identified by him before the court. He has further stated that accused Ravi Bihari was apprehended and accused Abhinav Jain managed to escape on motorcycle. From the formal search of -:46:- accused Ravi Bihari, one country made pistol and four live cartridges were recovered and the proceedings under Arms Act were conducted by HC Satbir Singh. Then they reached at the rented house of accused Abhinav Jain at Tri Nagar alongwith accused Sidharth Jain, from where accused Abhinav Jain was arrested. One katta and four cartridges were recovered from Abhinav Jain and HC Raj Kumar had taken over the investigation under Arms Act against accused Abhinav Jain. He prepared the tehrir, which he had taken to PS Keshav Puram for registration of the case and he was directed to reach C-3/25, Keshav Puram with copy of FIR. After registration of the case at Keshav Puram, he went to Tri Nagar where HC Virender prepared site plan. Abhinav Jain had escaped on motorcycle no, 6691. He has not identified accused Abhinav Jain. In cross examination conducted by Ld APP for State, he has identified accused Abhinav Jain before the court.
PW19 ASI Satvir has stated that he along with Inspector S.K. Meena, HC Raj Kumar, Ct Hazari Lal, Jodh singh, Rishi Pal,Naresh and accused Sidharth Jain went to sector-15, Rohini. There accused Abhinav Jain was noticed at a distance of about 100 meters from house no. E-2/58. At that time, accused Abhinav Jain had motorcycle make Kawasaki no. DL-4SY-6491. Accused Ravi Bihari was also with accused -:47:- Abhinav Jain. He has correctly identified both the accused persons before the court. He has further stated accused Abhinav Jain was siting on motorcycle and the engine of the motorcycle was running. On seeing them, Accused Ravi Bihar tried to escape and accused Abhinav Jain managed to escape from the spot on motorcycle. He with the help of Ct Naresh and Hazari apprehended accused Ravi Bihari. On his search, one country made pistol having one live cartridge was recovered from right dub of pant of accused Ravi Bihari. Three more live cartridges were recovered from left pocket of pant of accused. Accused Ravi Bihari made a disclosure statement. He took over the investigation of the case u/s 25 of Arms Act against accused Ravi Bihari. Then he along with Ct Naresh and accused Ravi Bihar reached at H. No C-3/32, and there Ravi Bihari was handed over to SI Mukesh. In Keshav Puram, Ashish Jindal identified accused Ravi Bihari as one of the person, was involved in kidnapping activities.
PW25 Ct Hazari Lal has stated that they went to house of Maternal Uncle of accused Sidharth in Keshav Puram and there at a distance of about 100 yards. a motorcycle was seen and two boys were sitting. Accused Sidharth identified those persons as Ravi Bihari, but he does not remember if accused Sidharth had told them about the name of -:48:- other boy or not. The other boy escaped on the motorcycle, whereas accused Ravi Bihari was apprehended.
He has further stated that he with HC Satvir and Ct Naresh took the search of accuse Ravi Bihari and from his right dub of pant of Ravi Bihari, one desi Katta was recovered, which was loaded with one cartridge and from his right pocket of the pant, three live cartridges were recovered. HC Satbir took over the investigation against Ravi Bihar and he prepared the tehrir. which he took to PS for registration of the case. Katta and cartridges were sealed in pullanda and were seized.
PW25 has identified accused Ravi Bihar before the court. Only suggestion has been given to PW12 HC Rajkumar that he did not go to Rohini or Tri Nagar. It is also suggested that accused Ravi Bihari and Abhinav Jain were not present in Rohini at that time as alleged by PW12. It has also been suggested that accused Ravi Bihari was not present there and nothing was recovered from accused Ravi Bihari. PW 12 has denied all these suggestions.
-:49:-
Ld Defence counsel for accused Ravi Bihari has contended that PW16 Ct Jeet Singh has admitted that no ransom letter was recovered from accused Ravi Bihari or Abhinav Jain. Even this witness or any other member of the police party had not gone to the house, where the alleged ransom letter was to be delivered. No site plan was prepared of the place, where accused Ravi Bihari was apprehended.
Ld Defence counsel has further contended that this witness has not been able to disclose the number of motorcycle and has further admitted that sketch of the katta and four live cartridges recovered from accused Abhinav Jain was not prepared in his presence.
PW25 has explained that he had gone to PS with therir, so the sketch of katta and live cartridges were not prepared in his presence as he had gone to PS for getting the case registered. So the contention of the Ld defence counsel is not forceful in any manner.
PW30 SI Mukesh Kumar has further stated that HC Satvir told that one katta and four live cartridges were also recovered from accused Ravi Bihari for which he was being separately investigated. He interrogated accused Ravi Bihari in this case and recorded his disclosure statement Ex. PW4/P and personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW4/U. From his search, one mobile phone, Rs.5300/- and one ring belonging to Ashish Jindal were recovered. Same were seized after -:50:- preparing pullandas and were sealed with the seal of MKS. Same were seized vide memo Ex.PW4/F and PW4/G. Thereafter, HC Raj Kumar came there alongwith accused Abhinav Jain and told that he was apprehended from Tri Nagar from his rented room after he had escaped from Sector-15, Rohini after delivering the ransom letter. He interrogated accused Abhinav Jain and recorded statement of Abhinav Jain as Ex.PW4/W4. From his search, purse of Ashish Jindal having I Card of Ashish Jindal and some money, which was identified by Ashish Jindal were also recovered. In the chain pocket of the purse, one gold colour chain was also found, which was identified by Ashsih Jindal as his own. He prepared the pullanda and sealed with the seal of MKS and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW4/H. Thereafter, he sent the accused persons and Ashish Jindal to hospital.
PW20 has stated that in the mean time, HC Satvir brought accused Ravi Bihari and IO interrogated accused Ravi Bihari and he was also identified by Ashish Jindal. HC Satbir told that fire weapon and live ammunition were recovered from accused Ravi for which a separate case was registered. From search of accused Ravi Bihari one mobile phone which was identified by Ashish Jindal and Rs.5300/- were recovered. Mobile phone and cash were separately sealed in pullanda with seal of MKS and were seized vide memo Ex.PW4/F and Ex.PW4/G. -:51:- PW20 has further stated that HC Raj Kumar brought accused Abhinav Jain and produced before PW30 SI Mukesh Kumar, who interrogated accused Abhinav Jain and recorded his disclosure statement. Ashish Jindal has identified accused Abhinav also. Accused Abhinav found to be wearing a gold chain which was identified by Ashish Jindal as his chain. One purse and I Card were also recovered from pocket of accused Abhinav, which were identified by Ashish Jindal. Both, I card and gold chain were sealed with seal of MKS and were seized vide memo Ex.PW4/H. Accused Abhinav was also arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW4/Q and his personal search was taken vide memo PW4/V. Ld defence counsels have contended that both PW30 SI Mukesh Kumar and PW20 Ct Anand Kumar have contradicted each other regarding recovery of chain from the possession of accused Abhinav Jain. PW30 SI Mukesh Kumar has stated in the cross examination that from the purse of Abhinav Jain, I Card of Ashish Jindal and some money were recovered, which were identified by Ashish Jindal. In the chain pocket of purse, one gold chain was also found, which was identified by Ashish Jindal as his own, whereas PW20 Ct Anand has stated that one purse I-card was recovered from pocket of accused Abhinav Jindal which was identified by Ashish Jindal. Accused -:52:- Abhinav Jindal was found to be wearing gold chain, which was identified by Ashish Jindal as his own. So it is doubtful as to whether accused Abhinav Jain was wearing a chain or he was having gold chain in the pocket of purse, which was allegedly recovered from his possession.
PW30 SI Mukesh Kumar has further stated that after medical examination, Ashish Jindal came there and they all went to sector-15, Rohini along with accused persons and at the instance of accused Ravi Bihari, the letter, which was put at the window of the house, was got recovered at the instance of accused Ravi Bihari. He seized the letter vide memo Ex.PW4/J. Thereafter, accused Sidharth Jain led them to the workshop of Santro Car at Main Bawana Road, Shahabd Dairy and he prepared the pointing out memo at his instance. Thereafter, he along with his staff and accused persons came to PS Bawana. Case property was deposited in PS Malkhana. He recorded the statement of the witnesses.
On 02/02/01, he produced the accused persons in the court and obtained 10 days PC remand of accused Abhinav Jain and Ravi Bihari. During the PC remand, accused Ravi Bihari led the police team headed by SI Ramesh Kumar to Patna, Bihar. He alongwith accused Abhinav Jain had searched the other accused and the vehicle.
PW20 Ct Anand Kumar has stated that accused Abhinav Jain -:53:- and Ravi Bihari led them to Sector-15, Rohini to the house of Maternal Uncle of Ashish Jindal and from there, a ransom letter was recovered, which was kept between window and cooler. It was seized vide memo Ex.PW4/J. On asking leading question, PW20 also admitted that one gold ring was also recovered from accused Ravi Bihari, but failed to identify accused Rajnesh again. PW20 Ct Anand has also identify gold ring as Ex.P8, which was recovered from accused Ravi Bihari and also mobile phone as Ex.P9, which was also received from accused Ravi Bihari. He has also identified gold chain as Ex.P7, which was found in the purse and was recovered from the accused Abhinav Jain. He has also identified purse as Ex.P3, which was recovered from accused Abhinav Jain.
Only suggestion has been given to PW20 Ct Anand, in the cross examination conducted on behalf of accused Abhinav Jain, which have been denied by PW20.
To further corroborate, PW22 Dr. S.A. Francies, Causality Incharge, BJRM Hospital has been examined. He has proved the MLC of Ashish Jindal, who was medical examined on 01/01/01 by Sh. Mrituam Jain. He has stated that he has seen Sh. Mritaum Jain writing and signing during ordinary course of duties, as he was working under him. Dr. Mrituam Jain has left the services of hospital and his whereabouts -:54:- are not known. He has proved the medical examination as Ex.PW22/A. He has further stated that according to the medical examination Ex.PW22/A, patient had needle injury present on both lower ends of forearm around writs joints.
Regarding the search of accused Naveen, PW31 Retired SI Ramesh Singh has stated that on 03/02/01, he was posted as SI at PS Bawana. On that day, investigation of this case was handed over to him by the order of the SHO. Accused Ravi Bihari was on PC on remand upto 09/02/01, he alongwith HC Ratan Lal, Ct Gyaneshwar with the accused went to the village Dandari, District Mugul Sarai, Bihar in search of accused Naveen. He was not traceable there. Thereafter, they went to village Dhaboli, district Seharsha, Bihar in search of accused Raju @ Chandrika. He was also not traceable there. Thereafter, on 07/02/09, he handed over the custody of the accused Naveen to the SI Mukesh Kumar along with the file. He has identified accused Naveen before the Court, who was arrested later on.
PW23 Ct Bheem Singh has stated that on 31/03/01, he was posted at PS Bawana, Delhi. On that day, he alongwith HC Ratan Lal, who was having NBW of accused Naveen and Raju @ Chandrika, went to the house of Chandrika, who was not present at his house. Thereafter, they went to the house of Naveen, who was found present at his house. -:55:- One Jagdish resident of Village Dandari Begusarai identified Naveen Kumar. Naveen was arrested in this case and his personal search was conducted vide memos Ex.PW23/A and P23/B. He was produced in the court of Begusarai and transit remand was obtained. They reached at Delhi on 01/04/2001 and he handed over the accused to SI Mukesh.
This witness has not been cross examined in any manner by Ld defence counsel.
To prove the fact that room at Trinagar was taken on rent by accused Abhinav Jain, prosecution has examined PW6 Netra Parkash Sharma. He has stated that he knows accused Nanak Chand and also accused Abhinav and Nisha, who are daughter and son in law of accused Nanakchand. He Knows Shanti Devi. Accused Abhinav Jain and Nisha were also with them and there house of Shanti was taken by Abhinav and Nisha which was on the first floor. He does not know number of the house, but that was in Tri Nagar. Abhinav and Nisha had taken only one room on rent for Rs.1500/- p.m. Premises were taken by Abhinav and Nisha about two years ago. PW6 has been examined in the year 2003, so in the year 2001, according to him accused Abhinav and Nisha had taken one room on rent in Trinagar in the house of one Shanti.
PW8 is Chunni Lal. He has acted as property dealer in obtaining the room on rent to accused Abhinav Jain and Nisha. He has -:56:- stated that he is barber by profession and running a shop at 1995, Ganesh Pura, Tri Nagar in the name and style of Sangam Hair Dresser. He knows Netra Pal son of Mahesh Bal Sharma. He also knows Shanti and her husband. On 9 December 2000, Netrapal came to him, accompanied by two more boys and asked him if any room was available on rent and he introduced those two boys as his friends. He enquired from Netrapal, if those boys had a family or not and Netra Pal replied in affirmative. He took Netrapal and those two boys to the house of Shanti. A room on the first floor was shown to those two boys at a monthly rent of Rs.1500/- and then he returned. One girl was also with those two boys. He has neither identify those two boys nor the girl before the Court.
PW9 is Shanti. She is the landlady of the said room. She has stated that she knows Netra Parkash and Chunni Lal. She is the owner of H. No.2240/172, Tri Nagar. In December 2000, she had let out one room of his house of first floor to accused Nisha and accused Micky. She has pointed towards accused Sidharth and has stated that he was known as Micky and had taken the room on rent. She has further stated that Chunni Lal and Netra Pal had also accompanied accused Nisha and Micky, when room was given on rent. Accused (pointed towards accused Abhinav) was also with accused Nisha and Micky when room -:57:- was let out. The room was let out for Rs.15,00/-. p.m. She had seen sister of Nisha i.e. accused Kanta visiting Nisha. Many other persons used to visit Nisha, but he cannot identify. After 01/02/2001, accused did not return to room ever and she got back the possession after breaking open the lock as per guidance of police. Nothing came out from the cross examination of this witnesses to disbelieve their testimony.
PW9 Shanti has stated in the cross examination that when the lock of the room was broken, some belongings of accused Nisha and Micky were found in the room. Many of those articles were damaged by passage of time and were thrown away within knowledge of police and some quilts etc. may be lying with them.
PW7 is Aman Bhalla. He has stated that he knows Ramesh, who was his customer. He was the owner of motorcycle make Bajaj Calibure having registration no. DL-4S-Y-6691. About two years ago, at about 2.00 pm, Ramesh took away his motorcycle with his permission. The motorcycle was never returned by Ramesh and he obtained it on superdari by orders of the court on 11/05/01, which was seized by the police.
So from the depositions of these witnesses, it has been corroborated that a room of Tri nagar was taken on rent by accused Abhinav Jain and Nisha and when they had gone to PW9 Shanti, -:58:- accused Sidharth Jain was also accompanied them. It has been proved that accused Abhinav Jain was apprehended from the said room and motorcycle no. DL-4S-Y-6691 was also seized from there which was lying parked on the ground floor.
PW12 HC Raj Kumar has also admitted in the cross examination conducted by Ld APP that from the first floor of that house, accused Abhinav Jain was apprehended on the pointing out of accused Sidharth Jain.
To prove the FIR no. 42/01 u/s 25 of the Arms Act, PW28 HC Bijender Singh has been examined. He has stated that on 01/02/01, he was posted at PS Prashant Vihar and was working as Duty Officer. On that day, at about 7.15 pm, he received a tehrir from HC Satbir through Ct Hazari on the basis of which he recorded an FIR No. 42/01 u /s 25 of the Arms Act. He proved the copy of same as Ex.PW28/A. During investigation, IO got conducted TIP of case property. PW13 Sh.A.S. Dateer, the then Ld MM has been examined. He has stated that on 17/03/01, he was posted as MM in Tis Hazari and on that day, SI Ramesh of PS Bawana had produced before him, case property duly sealed with the seal of MKS for identification. SI also produced four rings of golden colour for mixing purpose. IO was sent out and the case property was mixed up with other property and witness Ashish Jindal was -:59:- called in and he was asked to identify the ring and it was correctly identified by him. He recorded the proceedings of TIP, which are Ex.PW13/A. PW 13 has denied the suggestion that Ashish Jindal has no i identified any case property in his presence and report dated 17/03/01, was given to the IO without holding TIP.
This TIP relates to the ring, which was recovered from accused Sidharth Jain, when he was apprehended from his house at Sindhora Kalan and rest of the case property was recovered from accused persons in presence of Ashish Jindal, which have been identified by him at the time of recovery.
For identification of accused Naveen. Prosecution has examined PW14 Sh. M.S. Rohilla. He has stated that on 10/04/01, he was functioning as link MM of PS Bawana. On that day, an application being moved before Sh. P.D. Gupta was marked to him for conducting TIP of accused Naveen Kumar in this case. He made his endorsement Ex.PW14/A and fixed the same for 16/04/01. He went to the Central Jail to hold the TIP in respect of accused Naveen Kumar . Accused Naveen Kumar was identified by Sh. B.S. Chauhan, Asst Superintendent. Accused Naveen Kumar was warned that he was not bound to participate in the TIP and that in case he refused, then such refusal may -:60:- be considered against him during trial. As many 10 persons were also produced to participate in TIP. After accused Naveen had selected his place to stand, witness Ashish Jindal was called from outside and was asked to identify the accused. The witness correctly pointed out the accused Naveen. He recorded the proceedings which are Ex.PW14/B and were also signed by the witness. The certificate Ex.PW14/C was appended and he made his endorsement Ex.PW14/D. He directed that the original proceedings be sent to concerned court under sealed cover.
PW30 has stated that he arrested accused Naveen in this case on 02/04/01, vide memo Ex.PW23/A and took his personal search vide memo Ex.PW23/B. On 02/04/01, he interrogated accused Naveen and recorded his disclosure statement. He made application for judicial TIP of the accused Naveen. His application for TIP is Ex.PW30/C and TIP proceedings are Ex.PW14/B. Investigation of the FIR 41/01 u/s 25 of Arms Act was further conducted by PW24 HC Virender. He has stated that on 01/02/01, he was posted at PS Keshav Puram, and on that day, Ct Bhagirath handed over to him original rukka and copy of FIR no.41/2001 u/s 25 of the Arms Act. Thereafter, he went to the spot alongwith Jot Singh at House No. 2240/172, Tri Nagar there at the pointing out of Ct Jot Singh. He prepared the site plan and thereafter, he alongwith Ct Jot Singh reached -:61:- at C-3/32, Keshav Puram, where HC Raj Kr handed over to him two pullandas duly sealed with the seal of RK and one motorcycle No. DL- 4S-6641, Kawasaki. He formally arrested the accused in this case. He recorded the statement of Ct Rishi. He also recorded supplementary statement of HC Raj Kumar and SI Raj kumar recorded his statement. Thereafter, he came back to PS and deposited the motorcycle and the pullandas of katta and cartridge with MHCM.
Ld defence counsel has contended that motorcycle no. DL- 4SY-6649 has not been produced during the examination of any of the witness nor it has even been produced by the Superdar, who has taken the same on superdari. So the prosecution has not been able to prove the fact that any motorcycle was taken from the possession of accused, which was allegedly lying parked on the ground floor and was taken into possession by the police in this case. He has further stated that prosecution has not been able to prove that the motorcycle is the same motorcycle on which according to the prosecution, accused Abhinav Jain escaped from Sector-15, Rohini as stated by the witnesses.
Regarding the arrest of accused Nanak Chand and Kanta, prosecution has examined PW27 Ct Santro. She has stated that on 11/05/01, she was posted at Police station Bawana. On that day, she alongwith SI Mukesh and Ct Hazari Lal went to Tis Hazari Court. There -:62:- one lady accused Kanta was to be produced in court alongwith her husband Nanak Chand. Both were produced in the court and thereafter taken to the police station after taking their one day PC remand. Accused kanta remained in her custody in the police station. IO made inquiries. Thereafter, they took accused Kanta to her house. Accused Kanta pointed out the room in their house, where they had kept the boy Ashish Jindal. IO prepared the pointing memo. Accused Kanta made disclosure statement which is Ex.PW26/A. PW30 SI Mukesh Kumar has further stated that on 09/05/01, accused Nanak Chand and Kanta surrendered in the court of Sh. P.D. Gupta, the then MM, Tis Hazari. He formally arrested them in this case. He moved an application for their TIP . He obtained their one day PC remand . Accused led the police party to the place, where victim Ashish Jindal was kept.
To prove the arrest of accused Kailash and Balvinder, PW 26 HC Mahabir Singh was examined by prosecution. He has stated that on 19/01/02, he was posted at PS Bawana as Duty Officer. On that day at ab out 7.40 pm, SI Surjeet Singh gave information from PS Saraswati Vihar on phone that Kailash @ Chakeri and Balvinder, who are Po in this case have been arrested in case FIR no. 51/02, and 52/02 respectively and on 20/01/02 will be produced in the concerned court in Tis Hazari. -:63:- He recorded the information in the register at serial no. 17A and handed over the same to MHCR to give the same to the IO of the FIR no. 33/01. He has proved the photocopy of DD no.17 as Ex.pW26/A. PW30 SI Mukesh Kumar has state that on 28/01/2002, accused Kailash @ Chakeri and Balvinder @ Billa were arrested by the police of PS Maurice Nagar in the case of Arms Act. He was informed vide DD no.17A Ex.PW30/A. He formally arrested both the accused after taking permission of the court in this case vide arrest memo Ex.PW30/L and Ex.PW30/M. He interrogated both the accused persons and recorded their disclosure statement. He obtained their PC remand, during which accused persons pointed out the place of kidnapping and the place where he was kept after kidnapping. He moved an application for TIP of accused through Ashish Jindal, which is Ex.PW30/N. He recorded the statements of witnesses and handed over the case file to SHO Bawana for preparation of the supplementary challan.
Accused Kanta and Nanakchand were produced before PW14 Sh M.S. Rohilla, the then MM to join the TIP. He has stated that on 09/05/01, he was functioning as MM and another application was marked to him by Sh. P.D. Gupta for holding TIP with regard to accused Nanak Chand and Kanta. Both accused were produced and identified by SI Mukesh Kumar of PS Bawana with muffled face. Both accused were -:64:- duly warned that they were free to make any statement and that in case they refused to participate, the fact may be read against them. Having made them understood, he separately recorded the statements of the two accused persons, who refused to join the TIP proceedings. The proceedings of TIP were recorded and same are Ex.PW14/E. He also appended the certificate below the proceedings, which is Ex.PW14/F and made his endorsement Ex.14/G. He directed that proceedings be sent to the court under sealed cover.
PW21 Sukh Varsha has stated that she knows Nanak Chand. He lives in H. No.C-3/32, Keshav Puram and in the year 2001 also he was living in the same house. She knows children of NanakChand personally. Accused Nisha is daughter of accused NanakChand. She used to live in Tri Nagar with her husband i.e. accused Abhinav Jain. She used to visit her father. Nanak Chand had also another daughter Rajni. She knows wife of the accused Nanak Chand i.e. Kanta. She has identified both the accused Kanta and Nanakchand in the court.
Accused Kailash and Balvinder were also put to TIP. To prove this fact, PW29 Sh. Atul Kumar Garg, the then ARC Tis Hazari Courts, has been examined. He has stated that on 28/01/02, he was posted as MM, Tis Hazari Court and was working as Link Magistrate to Sh. Sudhesh Kumar, MM. On that day, an application was placed before -:65:- him by SI Mukesh Kumar of PS Bawana, duly marked by Link MM for holding TIP of accused Balvinder and Kailash. Both the accused persons were also produced in muffled face. He made inquiries from them as to whether they wanted to participate in TIP. Both the accused persons refused to participate in TIP. He warned both the accused persons that their refusal to participate in TIP may lead to adverse inference which may be drawn against them at the time of trial but still both the accused persons refused to participate in TIP. He recorded their statement to this effect. Statement of accused Balvinder is Ex.PW29/A and Kailash is Ex.PW29/B. Application of holding TIP is Ex.29/C and TIP proceedings are Ex.PW29/D. PW30 SI Mukesh Kumar has further stated that on 01/02/2001, he prepared the site plan of the place of recovery Ex. PW30/E and the place of workshop from where Ashish Jindal was kidnapped Ex.PW30/F. He also prepared the site plan of place at Tri Nagar, where the victim Ashish Jindal was kept on 29/01/2000. Ransom letter, which was recovered from the search of the accused Ravi Bihari is Ex.PW30/H and the seizure memo is Ex.PW30/J. He has also moved the application for TIP of the gold ring recovered from accused Sidharth Jain through Ashish Jindal. He has identified the case property before the Court from Ex.P1 to Ex.P11.
-:66:-
Ld defence counsels for accused persons have contended that PW16 Ct Jeet Singh has stated in cross examination conducted by Ld APP, that no ransom letter was recovered from accused Ravi Bihari or Abhinav Jain, whereas PW30 has stated that ransom letter, which was recovered from the search of Ravi Bihari is Ex.PW30/H and seizure memo is Ex. PW30/J. Ld defence counsels have further contended that the articles, which allegedly have been recovered from the accused persons are easily available in the market and no identification mark was put by IO on them, so it is not proved that these articles were recovered from the accused persons as stated by witnesses.
Ld defence counsels have further contended that regarding the ransom letter, PW4 has stated that it was in his handwriting, but was written by him in the police station at the instance of the police officials. Ld defence counsels have further contended that specimen handwriting of accused Ravi Bihari was taken for the purpose of comparison, but same has not been sent to FSL in any manner, so it cannot be said that anything was written by Ravi Bihar in this respect. Ld defence counsels have further contended that Kavita Aggarwal has not been examined by prosecution as a witness, so prosecution has not been able to connect and prove the fact that from Kavita Aggarwal, they came to know about Lalita Jain and further came to know about accused Sidharth Jain. It has -:67:- been further contended that no public person was asked to join the proceedings either at the time of the arrest of accused Sidharth Jain or at the time of arrest of accused Ravi Bihari or accused Abhinav Jain from Tri Nagar or at the time of arrest of accused Nisha, Rajnesh and Rajni.
Ld defence counsels have further contended that accused Rajni has already been acquitted by the juvenile court and has produced the certified copy of the judgment on record. It has been further contended that nothing was recovered from accused Nanakchand or from Kanta, so prosecution has not been able to connect accused Nanak Chand or Kanta in this case. Ld defence counsels have further contended that prosecution has not been able to bring on record the evidence that all the accused entered into criminal conspiracy to kidnap Ashish Jindal. Ld defence counsels have further contended that nothing was recovered from accused Kailash and Balvinder, so they have not been connected with the case of prosecution in any manner and prosecution has not been able to prove this case beyond reasonable doubts against accused persons.
Accused Naveen has examined DW2 Sachinder Kumar Singh in his defence, who has stated that in January 2001, he was residing at Delhi Engineering College, Shahbad Dairy. Naveen came to him on 26/27.01.2001, for some work on 31/01/10 at about 6/7.00 pm. -:68:- Police reached at his room at Delhi Engineering College and took Naveen to PS Bawana on the pretext that they will make some interrogation from him. On the next day, when he visited PS Bawana, he came to know that he was arrested in some case.
According to PW23, accused Naveen was arrested from village Dandari, Begusarai, Bihar. He was by identified one Jagdish. Accused Naveen was produced in the Court of Begusarai and his transit remand was obtained and police reached at Delhi on 01/04/2001, and handed over accused Naveen to SI Mukesh. If accused Naveen was available in Delhi or could have been apprehended in Delhi, then there was no need to take the transit remand from the court of Begusarai after the arrest of accused Naveen. Moreover, PW23, Ct Bheem Singh, has not been cross examined on behalf of accused Naveen in any manner nor any suggestion has been given that accused Naveen was apprehended on 31/01/01 from the house of DW2. So this witness cannot be believed in any manner.
Accused Abhinav Jain has examined DW3 Subhash Chander in his defence. DW3 has stated that in January 2001, accused Abhinav Jain used to reside at A-12, Delhi Administration Flats, Sindhora Kalan, Shakti Nagar, Delhi. On 31/01/01, at about 7/7.30 am, 3-4 persons came at the house of Abhinav Jain. They were in Civil Uniform. Later on they -:69:- came to know them as police officials. They took Abhinav Jain for the purpose of inquiry at PS and on the next day, he got information from his parents that he was arrested in a case.
Nothing has been suggested to any of the witness of the prosecution that accused Abhinav Jain was arrested from A-12, DDA Flats, Sindhora Kalan, Shakti Nagar, Delhi, rather infact, as per case of prosecution, accused Sidharth Jain was arrested from there. Accused Abhinav Jain was arrested from Tri Nagar from rented room, which has been proved by PW6, PW8 and PW9 that a room was taken on rent by accused Abhinav Jindal with accused Nisha and his brother Sidharth Jain. PW9 Shanti has specifically stated that accused Abhinav Jain, did not return to the room after 01/02/01, which shows that prior to 01/02/01, he was residing there. PW9 Shanti has not been cross examined by Ld defence counsel that accused Abhinav Jain did not reside at the room of Tri Nagar nor took the same on rent from PW9 Shanti, owner of the property. PW9 has also stated that she has seen sister of accused Nisha visiting Nisha and many other persons used to visit Nisha. From the depositions of prosecution witnesses, DW3 cannot believable as is contradiction and cannot be relied upon.
Conclusion
All the accused persons have been charged for the
-:70:-
offences punishable u/s 120B of IPC, u/s 328/120B/34 of IPC and offences punishable u/s 364A/120B/34 of IPC.
To prove the offence u/s 120B of IPC, the victim PW4 Ashish Jindal and other two witnesses i.e. PW1 Amit Jindal and PW3 Parul Gupta have not stated anything against the accused persons.
From the depositions of PW6 Netra Parkash, PW8 Chuni Lal and PW9 Shanti, prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts that one room was taken on rent at first floor of house no.2240/172, Tri Nagar,Delhi by accused Abhinav Jain and accused Nisha, but victim Ashish Jindal has not deposed before the Court that after kidnapping he was kept there. So it is not proved that the said room was used in kidnapping or was taken for the purpose to be used to keep there PW4 Ashish Jindal after kidnapping.
Ransom letter is also not proved. It is also doubtful that Ashish Jindal was removed from the room of house no. C-3/32, Keshav Puram, Delhi.
It has been held in 2009(163) DLT 658 titled as Rakesh Kumar Versus State that "the only relevant factor is that all means adopted and illegal acts done must be and purported to be in furtherance of the object of the conspiracy even though there may be sometimes misfire or overshooting by some of the conspirators. Even if some steps -:71:- are restored to by one or two of the conspirators without the knowledge of the others it will not affect the culpability of those others when they are associated with the object of the conspiracy. But then there has to be present mutual interest. Persons may be members of single conspiracy even though each is ignorant of the identity of many others who may have diverse role to play. It is not a part of the crime of conspiracy that all the conspirators need to agree to play the same or an active role."
So the prosecution has not been able to prove that accused persons entered into criminal conspiracy to commit the offence of kidnapping for ransom and the prosecution has also not been able to bring on record any evidence regarding the meetings of mind of the accused persons in respect of the criminal conspiracy.
Accordingly, prosecution has not been able to prove offence punishable u/s 120B of IPC against all the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts for which all the accused persons acquitted.
To prove the offence u/s 328/120B/34 of IPC, prosecution has examined PW4 Ashish Jindal, who has stated that when he was kidnapped, one of the person, who was on rear seat put a cloth on his face having some sedatives and he became unconscious. When he regained consciousness, he found himself sitting in the PS. Later on, he came to know that he had regained consciousness after about three -:72:- days.
According to the case of prosecution, as deposed by the police witnesses, purse was recovered from the possession of accused Nisha containing syringe and injections of pentazocine and three composed with one syringe exhibited as Ex.P12 . These articles were recovered according to the witnesses of police, at the time, when Ashish Jindal was recovered from a room of Flat no. C-3/32, Keshav Puram. After recovery, Ashish Jindal was medically examined from BJRM hospital. As per examination report Ex.PW22/A, no external injury was found except needle having injury on lower and forearm and he was found fit for statement, but PW4 Ashish Jindal has not identified any of the accused persons, as the same persons who had kidnapped him and kept him in the room of flat no. C-3/32, Keshav Puram, Delhi. The articles which were recovered by the police from the said room were identified there by Ashish Jindal according to the deposition of police witnesses, but Ashish Jindal has stated that nothing was recovered by police in his presence and when he regained his consciousness, he found himself in police station. So the recovery of these articles, as stated by the police witnesses from the accused person which allegedly were identified by Ashish Jindal at the time of his recovery, is doubtful.
So prosecution has also not been able to prove beyond -:73:- reasonable doubts that accused persons administered or caused to be taken by Ashish Jindal any intoxicant or unwholesome drug or any other thing with intent to cause hurt to him or with intent to commit or to facilitate the commission of offence or knowing that same will cause hurt to Ashish Jindal. Accordingly all accused are acquitted for the offences u/s 328/120B/34 of IPC.
To prove the office u/s 364A/120B/34 of IPC, prosecution has examined PW1, Amit Jindal, PW3 Parul Gupta and PW4 Ashish Jindal. From the deposition of PW4 Ashish Jindal, prosecution has not been able to prove the identity of the accused persons as the same persons who kidnapped him. Prosecution has not been able to prove that after kidnapping Ashish Jindal was kept in detention by the accused persons in the room of flat no. C-3/32, Keshav Puram and for one day in the room of Tri Nagar. Victim Ashish Jindal has not corroborated the facts about his recovery from the room of the said flat with the police witnesses, who have deposed that when Ashish Jindal was recovered from the said room of the flat no. C-3/32, Keshav Puram, he identified accused persons, who were present there and also identified his articles, which were recovered from the possession of the accused persons. So the recovery of articles and PW4 Ashish Jindal itself is doubtful from the room of Flat no.C-3/32, Keshav Puram, Delhi.
-:74:-
Prosecution has not been able to prove that ransom calls were made by the accused persons as PW1 has stated that calls were received by PW3 Parul Gupta whereas PW3 has stated that she did not attend any ransom calls and the conversation was being recorded by the police. Prosecution has not been able to bring on record the conversation and also has not been able to connect the land line number with the mobile phone, even after examining PW10 from the mobile phone company in this respect. Witness Kavita Aggarwal from whom they came to know about the mobile phone calls, has not been examined by the prosecution despite opportunities given.
So the accused persons have not been connected with the calls in any manner, which, as per the depositions of police witnesses, were made to demand ransom form the family of PW4 Ashish Jindal.
Accused Nanakchand and Kanta are in laws of accused Abhinav Jain. Nothing has been brought on record against them in evidence. Prosecution has not been able to prove the criminal conspiracy and no other act has been attributed to both these persons. They were not present at the time of recovery of PW4 Ashish Jindal. As per deposition of police witnesses, both these accused have surrendered later on before the court and have been formerly arrested in this case. Merely that they have refused to join the TIP, does not mean that they -:75:- were involved in kidnapping of PW4 Ashish Jindal. They have not been identified by PW4 Ashish Jindal in any manner.
Accused Naveen was identified by PW4 Ashish Jindal during the TIP, but before the Court, he has not been identified by PW4. No act has been attributed on the part of the accused Naveen nor PW4 Ashish Jindal has deposed anything against accused Naveen. Even as per the deposition of police witnesses, accused Naveen was arrested from Bihar, so at the time of recovery of PW4 Ashish Jindal, he was not present there.
Accused Kailash and Balwinder were arrested in some other case vide FIR no.51/02 and 52/02, u/s 25 of Arms Act, PS Saraswati Vihar and both of them have refused to join the TIP, but both have not been identified in any manner in this case relating to his kidnapping. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from both these accused persons. They have also been acquitted in FIR no.51/02 and 52/02, PS Saraswati Vihar, in which they were apprehended and had made disclosure statement of this case.
Accused Abhinav Jain was arrested from the room of house no. 2240/172, Tri Nagar, Delhi by the police officials and it is stated that one motorcycle no. DL-4SY-6691 was also seized which was lying parked there. This motorcycle has not been produced before -:76:- the Court during the examination of any of the witness. So it is not proved that accused Abhinav Jain on 01/02/01, when police already apprehended accused Ravi Bihari from sector 15, had managed to fled away from the spot on the motorcycle, where they were stated to have gone to deliver the ransom letter to the uncle of the Ashish Jindal at sector-15, Rohini, Delhi.
PW7 Aman Bhalla, owner of the motorcycle no. DL-4SY- 6691, has stated that one Ramesh took away his motorcycle and he did not return the same. Later on he obtained the motorcycle on superdari, because it was seized by police. Ramesh is one of the co-accused and is proclaimed offender, so it has not come on record, as to whether motorcycle was taken away by accused Ramesh and further he handed over the same to accused Abhinav Jain and Ravi Bhiari to use the same in this incident. So involvement of accused Abhinav Jain has not been proved in the incident by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubts.
Accused Abhinav Jain was arrested in case FIR no. 41/01, u/s 25 of Arms Act in which he has been acquitted on 25/01/02 as evident from the copy of goshwara register of PS Keshav Puram.
According to the deposition of police witnesses, accused Abhinav Jain was removed after his arrest from the room of Tri Nagar of flat no. 2240/72, from first floor and according to the seizure memo -:77:- Ex.PW4/H, one leather purse containing I-card of Satyawati College in the name of Abhinav Jindal having visiting card and Rs.229.50 paise were recovered. Purse was also containing one gold colour chain. PW4 Ashish Jindal had stated that these were removed from his possession by accused Abhinav Jain and his accomplices in the room of Tri Nagar, so on his identification, these were sized vide memo Ex.PW4/F. Before the Court, PW4 has admitted his signatures on the memo, but has stated that he regained his consciousness after about three days in the PS, whereas according to the deposition of police witnesses, seizure memo was prepared at the spot at the time of recovery of articles, which were identified by PW4 Ashish Jindal in the presence of the police and the accused persons.
PW4 has specifically stated that he was not wearing any chain. He has stated that he was having black colour leather purse containing driving licence and some documents. He has identified leather purse as Ex.P3 before the court, but has not supported the case of the prosecution that it was recovered from the accused Abhinav Jain, so the recovery of the purse from the Abhinav Jain is also not proved alongwith articles in it.
Even otherwise, it is highly improbable that purse was recovered from the possession of accused Abhinav Jain as accused was -:78:- apprehended from the room of Tri Nagar and there he was booked u/s 25 of Arms Act in FIR no.41/01 in which he has already been acquitted and at that time the purse was not recovered by police in his search either as case property or in his personal search. So how it come in possession of accused Abhinav Jain, when he was removed from room of Trinagar from flat no. C-3/32, Keshav Puram, is not explained by the police witnesses. So the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts that purse Ex.P3 of PW4 Ashish Jindal was recovered alongwith gold chain from the possession of accused Abhinav Jain.
Accused Rajni has faced trial before the juvenile court and Ld defence counsel has contended that she has already been acquitted by the Juvenile Justice Court vide order 16/08/05.
Regarding accused Nisha, police witnesses have deposed that according to the seizure memo Ex.PW4/D, one injection container of compose and three compose injections, two injections folded in plastic syringe along with one gold chain were recovered from the purse of accused Nisha. According to the seizure memo, at the time of recovery of articles, PW4 had identified the same and has stated that chain was removed by accused Nisha and the ampules and the injection and syringe are the same, which were given to him by accused Ravi Bihari. -:79:- PW4 Ashish Jindal while deposing before the court has stated that three ampules of compose, one ampule of fortwin and ampule of Pentazum , one syringe contained in pouch were not recovered in his presence. He has also stated that he was not wearing gold chain. So he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner regarding the recovery of these articles from the possession of Nisha whereas on the other hand police witnesses have stated that these articles were recovered from the possession of accused Nisha in the presence of PW4 Ashish Jindal, who had identified as his own at that time. So recovery of these articles from the possession of accused Nisha is also doubtful. So prosecution has also not been able to prove the recovery of these articles from the possession of accused Nisha belonging to PW4 beyond reasonable doubts.
Regarding accused Sidharth Jain, according to deposition of PW30 SI Mukesh Kumar, accused Sidharth Jain was arrested vide memo Ex.PW4/M. According to this witness, accused Sidharth Jain was arrested from A-12, DA Flats, Sindhora Kalan, Shakti Nagar, Delhi and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW20/B. From his right side pocket of pant, one gold ring having coin top was recovered. One photo visiting card having name of Ashish Jindal and his mobile phone number was also recovered. He sealed the ring in pullanda after -:80:- sealing the same with the seal of MKS and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW20/A. The visiting card with calender was seized vide memo Ex.PW4/B. Thereafter he reached at flat no. C-3/32, Keshav Puram, Delhi with accused Sidharth Jain. PW30 has identified the ring as Ex.P6. PW4 Ashish Jindal has also identified the ring, as his own as Ex.P6, which he was wearing at the time of kidnapping. TIP of ring was conducted by PW13 Sh. A.S,. Dateer, the then MM on 17/03/2001, which was recovered from accused Sidharth Jain on 0/02/01. It was identified by PW4 Ashish Jindal, before the then Ld MM during the TIP proceedings. Suggestion has been denied by PW13 that Ashish Jindal had not identified the ring in his presence and he gave his report dated 17/03/01, without holding TIP. PW4 Ashsih Jindal has not been cross examined in any respect, either regarding identification of a ring as Ex.P6 or regarding the fact that he did not join the TIP of ring on 17/03/01.
PW4 Ashsih Jindal was kidnapped on 29/01/01, whereas ring has been recovered from possession of accused Sidharth Jain on 01/02/01. Except the ring, prosecution has not been able to connect the accused Sidharth Jain with the kidnapping of PW4 Ashsih Jindal. PW4 has not identified accused Sidharth Jain, as the same person, who -:81:- kidnapped him on that day or kept him in flat no. C-3/32, Keshav Puram, Delhi. Even otherwise, PW4 has stated that he regained consciousness and found himself in the PS and later he came to know that he had regained his consciousness after about 3 days of incident.
In defence DW1 Manoj Kumar has been examined by accused Sidharth. He has stated that on 31/01/2001, at about 5/6.00 pm, 2-3 police official, came to his shop in civil dress and made inquiries about Sidharth and told that Sidharth was required for some investigation. Thereafter, they took him, his father and his employee Subhash alongwith Sidharth to PS Keshav Puram. After sometime, they all were allowed to go, but accused Sidharth was detained there to make some inquiries. They came back to the house in the night. On the next day, he visited PS Keshav Puram to make Inquiries about Sidharth and he was asked to go to PS Bawana. Thereafter, he reached at PS Bawana and it was told to him, that accused Sidharth was arrested in a case. He has further stated that Sidharth was working in his shop and he had not gone anywhere during those last 10/15 days.
No complaint has been made by DW1 to higher authorities, that accused Sidharth was detained by police at PS Keshav Puram. It was not suggested that Sidharth was not residing at A-12, DDA Flats, Sindhora Kalan. None of the witness examined by the prosecution has -:82:- been cross examined or suggested that accused Sidharth was arrested from Majnu Ka Tilla from the house of one Manoj Kumar. PW20 Ct Anand Kumar stated that they reached Shakti Nagar at about 1.00 pm. According to the arrest memo of accused Sidharth Jain, he was arrested at about 2.40 pm vide memo Ex.PW4/N. PW20 has further specifically stated that he remained inside the house of Sidharth Jain for about 1½ hours. PW20 has been cross examined about the physical appearance of mother of accused Sidharth Jain namely Lalita Jain and about the place of arrest of accused Sidharth. Accused Sidharth Jain has not examined any of his family member to rebut the same. Even it was not suggested that accused Sidharth Jain was nor residing there at any time. PW30 has also corroborated with PW20 and stated that they reached at the house of Sidharth Jain about 1.30 or 2.00 pm. Ld Defence counsel has contended that no public witness was called to join the proceedings. PW30 has explained that there was no time to call the public witness at the time of arrest of accused Sidharth Jain. So DW cannot be believed in any manner.
PW30 has also denied that no recovery of gold ring and visiting card was effected from the accused. He has also denied that recovery was planted on accused Sidharth Jain. Again, it is not -:83:- suggested to PW30 SI Mukesh Kumar that accused Sidharth Jain was lifted by them on 30/01/01 from Majnu Ka Tila from the shop of DW1 Manoj Kumar. So, PW20 Ct Mukesh Kumar and PW30 SI Mukesh Kumar cannot be disbelieved regarding the arrest of accused Sidharth Jain from house no. A-12, Sindhora Kalan, Shakti Nagar and regarding the recovery of gold ring having top coin Ex.P6 and photo I card. They both have corroborated each other and both of them inspired confidence and are reliable in this respect.
It has been held in 2009(163) DLT 658 titled as Rakesh Kumar Versus State that "where a witness is not cross examined on any relevant aspect, the correctness of the statement made by a witness cannot be disputed."
So PW30 SI Mukesh Kumar and PW20 Ct Anand Kumar have corroborated each other and their testimonies inspire confidence and there is nothing on record to disbelieve their testimonies and from the depositions of both these witnesses, prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts that accused Sidharth Jain was apprehended from house no. A-12, Sindhora Kalan, Shakti Nagar, Delhi and from his possession, one gold ring and one visiting cum calender card were recovered.
Prosecution has also been able to prove beyond doubts that -:84:- gold ring was identified by PW4 Ashish Jindal during the TIP and also before the court as his own.
DW1 examined by accused Sidharth Jain is not trust worthy and his deposition is not in consonance with the deposition of PW30 SI Mukesh Kumar and PW20 Ct Anand Kumar, hence he cannot be relied upon to the effect that accused Sidharth Jain was arrested from Majun Ka Tilla as stated by him, because no such suggestion was given to the witnesses during their cross examinations in this respect.
Accused Sidharth Jain has not explained the possession of the ring Ex.P6 belonging to PW4 Ashish Jindal, so according to the Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act, it is proved that he received stolen property and thereby is held guilty u/s 411 of IPC.
It has been held in 2008 CRL. L.J.3730, titled as Uttam Debbarma Vs State of Tripura that if accused charged with offence of kidnapping for ransom and if trial court found that demand for ransom was not established and thus it convict accused for kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine a person , then punishment for later offence being lesser than main offence, no notice is required to be served on accused for awarding punishment.
Accordingly accused Sidharth Jain convicted for the offence u/s 411 of IPC.
-:85:-
In view of the above discussion, prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts offences u/s 120B, u/s328/120B/34 of IPC and 364A/120B/34 of IPC against all the accused persons, hence all the accused persons are acquitted for the same. Announced in Open Court on dated 08/02/2010 (Virender Kr. Goyal) Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court Rohini : Delhi -:86:- IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR GOYAL ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE: FAST TRACK COURT ROHINI:DELHI SC No. 12/1 Date of Institution: 21/01/09 Date of Decision: 08/02/10 State Versus
1. Siddharth Jain S/o Sunil Kr. Jain R/o A012, DA Flats, Singhora Kalan Shakti Nagar, Delhi.
ORDER ON SENTENCE 08/02/10 Ld APP for State Convict Siddharth Jain with counsel Sh. L.S. Saini. I have Ld defence counsel and Ld APP for state on point of sentence.
Ld defence counsel submits that accused Sidharth Jain is aged about 27 years and he is still unmarried. He is unemployed. He has to support his mother. He was already in custody for more than 2 years in this case.
Ld APP has submitted that appropriate sentence be awarded to the convict for the offence for which he has been convicted. -:87:-
Considering the above facts and circumstances and value of the stolen property, convict is awarded sentence for 2½ SI with fine of Rs.5000/-in default of payment of fine, convict shall undergo SI for six months.
Fine not deposited. Benefit of section 428 cr.PC be given to convict. Accused is remanded to serve the sentence.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in Open Court on dated 08/02/2010 (Virender Kr. Goyal) Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court Rohini : Delhi -:88:-