Delhi District Court
State vs Sandeep @ Rinke on 16 February, 2015
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. HEMANI MALHOTRA, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE-05 (CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Sessions Case No.13/15
FIR No. 161/09
PS Burari
U.S 364A/34 IPC
State Vs Sandeep @ Rinke
State
Versus
Sandeep @ Rinke
S/o Sh.Rajender Singh,
R/o House No.46,
Extension II B,
Nangloi, Delhi
Date of institution :04.01.2015
Received by this Court on transfer : 28.01.2015
Date for reservation of judgment/conclusion
of Final Arguments : 16.02.2015
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 16.02.2015
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Sandeep @ Rinke S/o Sh.Rajender Singh was committed to the Court of Sessions to stand trial under Section 364A/34 IPC for abducting Nidhi and Neha from Dwarka Metro Station along with his associate (since not arrested) on 18.5.2009 in order to compel the relatives of the victims Nidhi and Neha to pay a ransom of Rs. Five lacs each.
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION
2. The facts of prosecution case elaborately stated as gathered from the charge sheet are that on 19.05.2009, a complaint was received in the Police Station Burari from Sh.Vikram Pratap Singh wherein he stated that his sister Nidhi aged about 21 years, who was a teacher in Anganwari had gone to Aanganwari at about 10.30 AM. While going to Anganwari, she had informed Judgment dt. 16.02.2015 in case State Versus Sandeep 1/21 2 her family members that she had a meeting in Dispensary and that she would return by 4.00 PM. It was further alleged that when the complainant made a call on her mobile phone, he found the same to be switched off. At about 8.30 PM, he received a call on his mobile no.9211843737 from her mobile no.9268147699 and the caller who was a male told him to deliver a ransom amount of Rs five lacs the next day or else Nidhi would be killed. The complainant further alleged that the co-worker of Nidhi namely Neha was also kidnapped. The family members of Neha had also received a similar call for ransom of Rs five lacs .
3. It is the further case of the prosecution that on the complaint of the complainant Vikram Pratap, case FIR was registered and further investigation was assigned to SI Satya Prakash. During the investigation, the complainant informed the IO, SI Satya Prakash that Nidhi and Neha had returned home safe and sound. SI Satya Prakash then recorded the statements of Nidhi and Neha u/s 161 Cr.P.C wherein they stated that on 18.05.2009, they both had gone to Dwarka Metro Station to meet their friend/accused Sandeep. When they reached there, they found accused Sandeep to be present in a Santro car along with his friend. They both sat in the car and after some time, accused Sandeep and his friend tied their hands and eyes with piece of a cloth and gagged their mouths brandishing a knife. Thereafter, they took them to a house where accused and his friend made ransom calls to their family members demanding Rs. Five lacs each from the mobile phones of Neha and Nidhi to their family members. When even till the next night, accused Sandeep and his accomplice did not receive any ransom amount, they left them at an isolated place. During the investigation, SI Satya Prakash came to know that prior to the incident saccused Sandeep used to converse frequently with Nidhi and Neha. SI Satya Prakash got recorded the statements of Nidhi and Neha u/s 164 Cr.P.C and took them to identify the house in which they Judgment dt. 16.02.2015 in case State Versus Sandeep 2/21 3 had been confined near Dwarka Metro Station and its surrounding areas. Despite best efforts, Nidhi and Neha could not identify the said house. Neither the accomplice of accused Sandeep nor the santro car used by the accused could also be traced. Further investigation of the present case was taken over by Insp. Shiv Dayal. In the meantime, accused Sandeep moved an anticipatory bail application with which, he had attached copy of the FIR and the transcripts of the conversation between him and victim Nidhi after the registration of the FIR. During investigation, victim Nidhi admitted to have spoken to the accused Sandeep on his mobile phone. Accused Sandeep also sent a copy of the CD containing the conversation between him and Nidhi to the police. Since accused Sandeep was absconding, process u/s 82 Cr.P.C was got issued and he was declared proclaimed offender. Thereafter, the complainant Vikram Pratap Singh and the victims filed a quashing petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties which was dismissed as withdrawn. On 21.11.2009, accused Sandeep surrendered before the Court whereafter, he was arrested. Accused was interrogated but no clue regarding his accomplice, the place where Nidhi and Neha were confined and the santro car could be found. After completing the investigation, SI Satya Prkash filed charge sheet against the accused Sandeep u/S 364A/34 IPC.
CHARGE
4. Charge under Section 364A/34 IPC was framed against the accused Sandeep to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION WITNESSES
5. Prosecution in order to prove its case, examined 13 witnesses in all. Amongst the witnesses examined, PW 1; Nidhi, PW2 ;Neha, PW 3; Smt. Krishna Devi and PW 4; Vikram Pratap Singh, PW 5 Ajay Pandey, and PW 6; Nirmala Singh Judgment dt. 16.02.2015 in case State Versus Sandeep 3/21 4 are the material witnesses. PW 7 ASI Narayan Singh (Duty Officer), PW 8 Rajeev Ranjan, Nodal Officer, Tata Tele Services Ltd, PW 9 Israr Babu, Alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone Mobile Services Limited and PW 11 Sh. Tarun Yogesh, ACMM (South) Saket Courts are formal witnesses whereas PW 10 Shiv Dayal, ACP, PW12 SI Mahavir Singh and PW 13 SI Satya Prakash are the witnesses of investigation.
MATERIAL WITNESSES
6. PW 1 Nidhi who was one of the victims testified that on 18.05.2009, she and Neha (second victim) a resident of Jahangir Puri were working in Aanganwari at Pardhan Enclave, Burari , Delhi. Her mother Smt. Nirmala Singh was also working in the said Aanganwari. On 18.05.2009, she and Neha marked their attendance at 10/10.30 AM at Harijan Basti, Burari, Delhi and informed one Sudha Sharma that they were going to Jhandewalan Mandir whereafter, they both left the Aanganwari centre for Jhandewalan Mandir. Both of them were carrying their own mobiles and when they reached GTB Nagar, she received a call on her mobile number from one Ajay Bhaiyya whom she informed that they were going to Jhandewalan Mandir, upon which, he asked her to wait for him. After some time, Ajay came to GTB Nagar on his motorcycle from where they went to Chawri Bazar on his motorcycle. After parking the motorcycle at Chawri Bazar, Ajay, Neha and she boarded the metro to go to Jhandewalan. In the meantime, accused Sandeep called Neha sinced she was known to him son her mobile phone and asked them to come to Kakrola Mor.
7. PW 1 Nidhi further testified that all three of them got off at Kakrola Mor. Ajay remained at the metro station whereas she and Neha met accused Sandeep and his friend outside the metro station who had come in a black santro car with tinted glasses. Neha called Ajay telephonically and asked him to leave as Judgment dt. 16.02.2015 in case State Versus Sandeep 4/21 5 she was going to her aunt's house and that will take substantial time. They both boarded the said car and went for a drive with accused Sandeep and his friend. After driving some distance, accused Sandeep and his friend purchased one cold drink which was shared by all of them. After some time, the accused and his friend informed them that they have been compelled to kidnap them. Accused Sandeep kept driving the car whereas his friend gagged their mouth with a cloth and tied their legs with rope whereafter, they were taken to a house and confined in two separate rooms. Sometime later, they were kept in the same room where they were confined for one night and a day. At about 9.00 PM on 19.05.2009, they were left on some road from where they hired an auto rikshaw and reached home at about 12 midnight. Parents and Uncle of Neha reached her house from where they were taken to PS Burari. The police made enquiries from them and they told the police that the accused and his friend had not done anything wrong with them. She also narrated the entire incident to her brother Vikram Pratap Singh and her parents. Her brother Vikram Pratap Singh told her that he had received a ransom call from her mobile phone making a demand of Rs.five lacs for her release and even the parents of Neha had also received a similar call from the mobile phone of Neha. Her statement (Ex. PW 1/A) was also got recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C.
8. In her lengthy cross examination, PW 1 Nidhi ( first victim ) testified that she had known Neha (second victim) since two years prior to the incident. Accused Sandeep was also known to her prior to the incident and she used to frequently talk to him on his mobile phone from her mobile phone bearing No. 9268147699. She denied the suggestion that even after the incident, she was in regular contact with accused Sandeep. She admitted the fact that she was in possession of her mobile phone when she reached home after the incident and that she had not made any call at 100 number on the day of the Judgment dt. 16.02.2015 in case State Versus Sandeep 5/21 6 incident.
9. During her further cross examination, she testified that she did not remember if accused Sandeep was having mobile no.9891680756 but she admitted that on the day of the incident i.e 18.05.2009, accused Sandeep was having mobile no.9999148285 and that she also had spoken to him on 25.05.2009 (a week after the incident) she also deposed that although she did not remember if she had conversed with accused Sandeep on his mobile phone on 26.05.2009 but the documents mark X1/DC (collectively) and X1/DD were the transcripts of the conversations held between her and accused Sandeep on 26.05.2009. She also admitted documents marked as Mark X1/DE (Collectively) and Mark X1/DF(collectively) to be the transcripts of the conversations held between her and accused Sandeep on 25.05.2009.
10. PW 2 Neha (second victim) deposed that she had been working in Aanganwari since 2007 at Burari village. Nidhi /PW 1 was her friend who was also working with her since 2007 at the Aanganwari. Her mobile number was 9210002418 . She and her friend Nidhi/PW 1 knew accused Sandeep prior to the incident . About two months ago in the month of May 2009, she had received a call from an unknown number 9718574665 and the caller had told that his name was Sandeep. After which accused Sandeep started calling her up regularly and they were in constant touch with each other on mobile phone for at least two months before the date of incident. One day, accused called her and asked her to meet him at Dwarka Metro Station as he had never seen her. When she discussed meeting Sandeep with her friend Nidhi/PW1, both of them decided to meet accused Sandeep at Dwarka Metro Station. On 18.05.2009 , both of them went to meet the accused Sandeep at Dwarka Metro Station by Delhi Metro where they met accused Sandeep and his friend, who was already sitting on the driver seat in a black colour Santo Car. Accused Judgment dt. 16.02.2015 in case State Versus Sandeep 6/21 7 Sandeep told them to sit in the santo car whereafter the accused drove them to a lonely place. After stopping the car, he told them that he did not want to do anything wrong with them but due to some compelling reasons, he was kidnapping them. At that moment, the friend of accused got down from the front seat and sat with them on the back seat. Accused Sandeep was also carrying a rope and a monkey cap. He tied her hands with the rope and his friend made her wear the monkey cap. Since the monkey cap covered her face, she could not see anything. After some time, accused Sandeep pulled her out of the car and lifted her in his lap and after walking some distance, accused dropped her at some place and removed the monkey cap. When the monkey cap was removed, she found herself in a room. Accused asked her to make a call to her parents demanding Rs.five lacs for her release.
11. PW 2 Neha further testified that on her refusal to make the call, accused made a call in her presence to her mother from her mobile phone demanding Rs.five lacs for her release. She was then taken to the room where Nidhi /PW 1 was kept whereafter they both were confined in the same room till the morning of 19.05.2009. In the midnight , accused Sandeep received a phone call after which, the accused Sandeep and his friend decided to release them. They were dropped at some distance from where she and Nidhi/PW 1 had to walk further some distance to hire an auto rikshaw. They hired an auto rikshaw and reached the house of Nidhi/PW 1 at Burari. Police came to their house and they both were taken to PS Burari. Her parents and brother of Nidhi also reached PS Burari. Police made enquiries from them and recorded their statements. They were taken to Dwarka Metro Station by the police but she could not identify the house where they were confined. Her statement (Ex.PW2/A) was recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C.
12. During her cross examination, PW 2 Neha admitted that on 18.05.2009, she Judgment dt. 16.02.2015 in case State Versus Sandeep 7/21 8 and her friend Nidhi/PW1 had told their family members that they were going to Jhandewalan Mandir whereas they had not gone to Jhandewalan Mandir but had deboarded at Dwarka Metro Station from where she had called up accused Sandeep and had told him about their arrival. They had left their house at 9.30 AM after which they had gone to their office in Burari and had reached Dwarka Metro Station at 10.00 AM. She did not know the registration number of the car in which they both had sat with accused Sandeep and his friend. She was dropped by the accused at about 12-12.30 AM in the intervening night of 19/20.05.2009.
13. PW 3 Krishna Devi, mother of Neha/PW2 deposed that on 18.05.2009, her daughter Neha/PW2 had left her house at about 10.00 AM for Aanganwari at Burari . When she did not return till late in the evening, she contacted friends of Neha , however, they showed their ignorance regarding her whereabouts. She also tried to contact her daughter on her mobile phone but her mobile phone was found to be switched off. At about 8.30 PM, she received a call from a male caller on the mobile phone of her daughter in law (Monika) from mobile no.9210002419 of her daughter Neha demanding a ransom amount of Rs.five lacs for the release of her daughter or else her daughter would be killed. The caller had also stated that he will inform about the place where the ransom amount was to be delivered. The caller had made several calls within a short duration.
14. PW 3 Krishana Devi further testified that she along with her son went to the police station Burari to file a missing report qua her daughter Neha. At the police station, Vikram Pratap Singh, brother of Nidhi/PW1 was found to be present and after exchanging notes, she came to know that Vikram had also received a similar call. Her statement was recorded by the police on 19.05.2009. She was informed about the return of Nidhi and Neha at about Judgment dt. 16.02.2015 in case State Versus Sandeep 8/21 9 11.30 PM by Vikram, brother of Nidhi/PW1
15. PW 4 Vikram Pratap Singh/brother of Nidhi/PW1 testified that Nidhi was his sister. On 18.05.2010, she had informed that due to a meeting in her department, she would return by 4.30 PM. When Nidhi did not return by 4.30 PM, he tried to call her on her mobile phone no.9268147699 but found it to be switched off. At about 8.30 PM, he received a call from a male caller on his mobile phone no.9211843737 from the mobile phone of his sister Nidhi where the caller was a man who demanded Rs.five lacs for the release of his sister and in case of non payment, he had threatened to kill his sister. Thereafter, at 9./9.30 PM he went to the PS Burari where he met the mother of Neha. He made a written statement Ex.PW4/ A to the police. On the next day, at about 10.30 AM, 5 PM and a 8.00 PM, he had again received ransom calls for the release of his sister. At about 10.30-11.00 PM on 19.05.2009, his sister along with her friend Neha reached home and he informed the mother of Neha and police about the return of Nidhi and Neha whereafter police came and took both of them to the Police Station.
16. During his cross examination,Vikram Pratap Singh/PW4 admitted that there was no physical injury on the person of his sister Nidhi when she returned home.
17. PW 6/mother of Nidhi/ Smt. Nirmala Singh deposed that she was a teacher in Aanganwari, Burari. Nidhi was her daughter who also worked in Aanganwri. On 18.05.2009, when Nidhi did not return from the Aanganwari by 2.00 PM, she had tried to contact her daughter on her mobile phone but it was found unreachable. Her son Vikram Pratap Singh /PW4 also tried to contact Nidhi but also found her phone unreachable. At about 8.30 PM, she received a ransom call on her mobile phone no.9211843737 from the mobile phone of her daughter. The caller was demanding a ransom amount of Rs.five lacs for the Judgment dt. 16.02.2015 in case State Versus Sandeep 9/21 10 release of her daughter and threatening her that if the ransom amount is not paid, Nidhi would be killed. They went to the police station Burari where her son Vikram Pratap Singh made a complaint to the police. They also met the mother of Neha at PS Burari who informed them that she had also received a similar call for the release of her daughter Neha.
18. PW 5 Ajay Pandey testified that he knew Nidhi, resident of Burari. On the night of 17.05.2009, Nidhi had called him from her mobile phone and had asked him to accompany her to the house of her friend's aunt. She requested him to pick her from Kingsway Camp on the next day at about 11.30/12.00 Noon. Initially, he declined the request of Nidhi but on her persistent requests, he had agreed. On the next day i.e 18.05.2009, he reached Kingsway Camp at about 11.45/12.00 Noon. Nidhi and her friend also reached there after 5-10 minutes. Thereafter, he took both of them to Chawri Bazar on his motorcycle and parked his motorcycle there for boarding metro to reach Dwarka Mor. After dropping both of them at Dwarka Mor, he had come back to his place of work.
19. In his cross examination, he categorically testified that although he knew victim Nidhi/PW 1 personally she was not related to him. She used to talk to him on his mobile phone since one and half month prior to the date of incident and that he had met her for the first time on the date of the incident.
FORMAL WITNESSES
20. PW 7 ASI Narayan Singh (Duty Officer) deposed that on 19.05.2009 at about 11.10 AM, he received a rukka from SI Mahabir Singh on the basis of which, he registered the case FIR No.161/09 (Ex.PW7/A). After registration of the case FIR, he handed over the original rukka and copy of the FIR to Const. Padam for further handing over to SI Mahabir Singh/PW 12.
Judgment dt. 16.02.2015 in case State Versus Sandeep 10/21 11
21. PW 11 Sh.Tarun Yogesh, learned ACMM proved the certificate regarding the correctness of the statements of the victims Nidhi and Neha u/s 164 Cr.P.C (Ex.PW 1/A and Ex.PW1/B) as Ex.PW 11/B and Ex.PW11/C.
22. PW 8 Rajeev Ranjan, Nodal Officer, Tata Tele Services Limited proved the copy of the customer application forms of mobile phone no.9268147699, 9211843737and 9210002419 which were in the names of Nidhi Singh, Vijay Bhan Singh and Lala as Ex. PW8/A , Ex.PW8/B and Ex.PW8/C. He further testified that the call detail record of the said mobile phone numbers for the period from 15.04.2009 to 30.05.2009 were not available.
23. PW 9 Israr Babu, Alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone Mobile Services proved the customer application form (Ex.PW9/A) of mobile phone no.9999148285 which was in the name of Sandeep. He further proved the call detail record (Ex.PW9/B) of the said mobile phone number and certificate in this regard as Ex.PW9/C. WITNESSES OF INVESTIGATION
24. PW 12 SI Mahavir Singh testified that at about 1.05 PM on 19.05.2009 a complaint made by Vikram Pratap Singh was assigned to him. He prepared a rukka and got the case FIR registered and thereafter proceeded to house No. 147, Gali Burari, Delhi where he recorded the statements of complainant Vikram Pratap and his mother. He then went to house no.268, Gali No.4, Harit Vihar, Burari, Delhi where he recorded the statement of Sudha , colleague of Nidhi/PW 1 and Neena.
25. PW 12 further testified that in the police station, Smt. Krishana Devi (mother of Judgment dt. 16.02.2015 in case State Versus Sandeep 11/21 12 Neha) and her son Amit met him and he recorded their statements. Thereafter, further investigation of this case was assigned to SI Satya Prakash (PW13).
26. PW 13 SI Satya Prakash testified that on 20.05.2005, he reached police station Burari where victims Nidhi and Neha were found to be present. After recording their statements, he along with one lady Constable, his team companions and other constables and the victims went in search of the accused Sandeep to Dwarka Metro Station . Although both the victims pointed the place where accused Sandeep met them but they did not give any clue regarding the place where they were taken. On 21.05.2009, he got recorded the statements of both the victims u/s 164 Cr.P.C. During investigation, he received a copy of recorded conversation between accused Sandeep and Nidhi after which he recorded the supplementary statement of the victim Nidhi.
27. PW 13 further testified that on 21.11.2009, accused Sandeep surrendered before the court and he interrogated the accused. He also recorded the disclosure statement (Ex.PW13/A) of the accused . Accused was arrested vide memo Ex. PW13/B and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW13/C. He also collected the call detail records of the mobile phone nos. 9268147699 of victim Nidhi, 9210002419 of victim Neha and 9999148285 and 9718574665 of accused Sandep.
VERSION OF THE ACCUSED
28. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C wherein he denied the prosecution's case in toto and stated he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Victim Nidhi had informed him that her family members had lodged a false complaint against him and that he should Judgment dt. 16.02.2015 in case State Versus Sandeep 12/21 13 disappear. She was also demanding money from him.
29. I have heard the learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the accused persons and have gone through the record with utmost care.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
30. Both PW-1 Nidhi and PW-2 Neha in their testimonies improvised substantially from their statements (Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B )recorded U/s 164 Cr.P.C and Section 161 Cr.P.C for which they were confronted at length during their cross examination. The contradictions which come on record are as follows:-
CONTRADICTIONS:
(i)PW-1/Nidhi testified that they were on their way to Jhandewalan Mandir when Neha/PW2 received a call from accused Sandeep asking them to come at Kakrola Morh. In her statements u/s 164 Cr.P.C and u/s 161 Cr.P.C, she categorically stated that she and her friend Neha already had plans to meet accused Sandeep at Kakrola Morh and therefore, they made an excuse that they were going to Jhandewalan Mandir. PW-2/Neha in her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C also stated that they had already planned to meet accused Sandeep and hence had made an excuse at Aanganwari that they were going to Jhandewalan Mandir. Nidhi /PW1 had called Ajay Pandey/PW5 at Kingsway Camp and from there all three of them had gone to Dwarka Metro Station.
Both PW-1/Nidhi and PW -2/Neha contradicted each other's statement. According to PW 1Nidhi, their destination was Karkari Morh and as per PW2/Neha, their destination was Dwarka Morh.
(ii) PW-1 Nidhi in her testimony mentioned taking help of one Ajay Bhaiyya @Ajay Pandey/PW 5 to reach Dwarka Metro Station. She categorically stated Judgment dt. 16.02.2015 in case State Versus Sandeep 13/21 14 that she had received a call from the so called Ajay Bhaiyya when she had reached GTB Nagar. When she informed him that she and her friend Neha were going to Jhandewalan Mandir, he had asked her to stay there so that he could join her. In her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C and u/s 164 Cr.P.C she specifically stated that it was she who had called Ajay Pandey/PW5 to accompany her and Neha to Karkari Morh as they wanted to go and meet Neha's aunt. In complete contradiction to her testimony, Ajay Pandey/PW 5 very specifically testified that it was victim Nidhi who had contacted him one day prior i.e on the night of 17.05.2009 and had asked him to pick her up from Kingsway Camp on 18.05.2009. On 18.05.2009, he had met both the victims PW-1 Nidhi and PW 2 Neha for the first time at Kingsway Camp from where they had gone to Chawari Bazari on his motorcycle and then had proceeded to Dwarka Morh by metro. Whereas, the careful scrutiny of the testimony of PW 2 Neha shows that as per her, only she and her friend Nidhi /PW1 had gone to Dwarka Metro Station by Delhi metro. In her lengthy testimony, not even once did she mention the name of Ajay Bhaiyya @ Ajay Pandey/PW5 or that he had accompanied them from Kingsway Camp to Dwarka Metro Station, although in her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C, she had clearly mentioned that they were accompanied by Ajay Pandey/PW5 till Dwarka Morh Metro Station.
(iii) PW 1/Nidhi testified that after they had boarded the santro car with accused Sandeep and his friend, all had shared a cold drink. The said fact was neither mentioned by Nidhi in her statements u/s 161 and 164 Cr.P.C nor by Neha in her deposition or her statements.
(iv) Neither PW 1/Nidhi nor PW 2 Neha testified that the accused Sandeep had tied their hands and gagged their mouths at knife point whereas, both of them specifically mentioned this fact in their statements u/s 164 and 161 Cr.P.C.
Judgment dt. 16.02.2015 in case State Versus Sandeep 14/21 15
(v) Neither PW 1/Nidhi nor PW 2/Neha mentioned in their statements as to how they were tied and gagged but PW-1 in her testimony stated that their mouths were gagged with a piece of cloth and their hands and feet were tied with ropes. Neha /PW2 had deposed that only her hands were tied with rope and she was made to wear a monkey cap which covered her face.
(vi)Both PW 1/Nidhi and PW2/Nidhi had stated in their statements that they were confined in two separate rooms but both improvised in their testimonies and stated that after being confined in two separate rooms, they were kept in one room.
(vii)According to PW-1/Nidhi, they were released and left at a deserted place at 9.00 PM on 19.05.2009 from where they hired a three wheeler and reached at her house at about 12.00 midnight. However, as per PW 2/Neha, accused Sandeep had received a call at midnight and after that, they were released and dropped at some place. From the testimony of PW 2 /Neha , it can be inferred that according to her, they were dropped by the accused Sandeep after 12 midnight. In their statements u/s 161 and 164 Cr.P.C, neither of them mentioned the time at which they were released and dropped on 19.05.2009.
(viii) Also, according to Nidhi/PW1 when they reached their house after they were released, the parents and uncle of Neha also reached her house but according to Neha/PW2 after they reached the house of Nidhi at Burari, police had come and had taken them to PS Burari and relatives of Neha had reached directed at P.S.
31. Apart from the major contradictions in their own statements, PW1 and PW2 also contradicted each other in their testimonies as discussed above. Even the Judgment dt. 16.02.2015 in case State Versus Sandeep 15/21 16 testimonies of Vikram Pratap Singh/PW 4 and PW6 Smt.Nirmala Singh (mother of PW1 and PW 4) are marred by variations which can not be termed as minor by any stretch of imagination. PW-4 testified that it was he who had received the ransom call on his mobile number whereas his mother /PW6 testified that it was she who had received the call. PW 4 deposed that even till next day i.e 19.05.2009, he kept on receiving ransom calls whereas there is no mention of any ransom calls on 19.05.2009 by PW1/Nidhi from whose phone ,the alleged ransom calls were made or PW 6/Nirmala Singh who claimed that she had received ransom call on the mobile phone of her daughter in law.
32. Most significantly, PW 1Nidhi during her cross examination admitted to have spoken to accused Sandeep on 25.05.2009 and 26.05.2009 on his mobile phone even after the incident. She also admitted the contents of the transcripts Mark X1/DC (collectively), Mark X1/DD, Mark X1/DE (Collectively) and Mark X1/DF(collectively) regarding the conversations held between her and the accused Sandeep on 25.05.2009 and 26.05.2009. The bare perusal of the transcripts reveal that both Nidhi and Neha, PW1 and PW 2 had planned in advance to meet accused Sandeep and that the incident dated 18.05.2009 and 19.05.2009 as narrated by the witnesses of the prosecution i.e PW1, PW 2, PW3, PW 4 and PW6 never took place. In the transcript Mark X1/DF, PW 1 Nidhi is found conversing with accused Sandeep on 25.05.2009 as follows:-
Nidhi- You ask any girl to call Neha on her phone telling her that she is Neetu and when Neha comes on the phone, you tell her that I love you a lot . If police confronts you with me you refuse to identify me as your alleged kidnapper.
Otherwise your family members will not get you Judgment dt. 16.02.2015 in case State Versus Sandeep 16/21 17 married to me. Now , tell what is to be done.
Sandeep- You tell what is to be done.
Nidhi You know the place where we had stayed. The police had taken us twice towards that side but I refused to identify that place.
My brother has spoiled our entire plan by complaining to the police.
Sandeep- The biggest problem is that the cases which have been filed against me are all false. Both of you willingly came to me and have now filed a false case of kidnapping against me. I did not ask for any ransom, yet you have filed a case of ransom demand ransom against me. I also came to know that you have filed a rape case against me. Please tell, did we even touch you?
Nidhi Oh yes, it has been proved that nothing of this
kind ever happened.
........................................................................... Nidhi Please don't worry, the charges of rape etc. have been dropped against you and only the charge of kidnapping has been left and that too, because of my brother.
Sandeep: Is it not true that both of you came to us willingly.
Nidhi Yes. I spoke the truth that we both had met you and had gone to you willingly but it is only because of my brother that all these allegations have been filed against you which are absolutely false.
...........................................................................
Nidhi I will make an effort that you are able to speak to Neha or else I will take the phone number of brother of Neha from my brother.
Judgment dt. 16.02.2015 in case State Versus Sandeep 17/21 18 If you ever want to speak to me then please call from STD and don't call from your mobile phone.
Or else, I will give you some other number.
..................................................................... Nidhi I know there is a problem but forget about that. I am worried about you, you please take care and eat well.
............................................................................ Sandeep Please don't talk about dying. Yaar, I do not want to lose you.
33. On 26.05.2009 as well, accused Sandeep is found conversing with PW1 Nidhi. The relevant excerpts of the conversation held between them are as follows:-
Sandeep- Neha loves me and came to meet me out of her own will. Please ask her why is she doing this to me and at whose behest is she trying to falsely implicate me.
..................................................................... Sandeep If police arrests me and confronts me with you and asks you if I am the same boy what will you say?
Nidhi No , I will refuse to identify you and tell them that you were not the same person.
.........................................................................
Sandeep What made you make this absurd plan? What
came to your mind? Either you should have come
alone or Neha should have come alone.
Nidhi She would have never come alone, therefore, I
had to come with her. Please understand, it was
all destiny.
Sandeep Let destiny go to hell. Why are not her family
members leaving me? What do they want from
me? Why are they committing this wrong to me?
Judgment dt. 16.02.2015 in case State Versus Sandeep 18/21
19
Neha came on her own and did I do anything
wrong with her? Why are her family members
not agreeing ?
........................................................................ Sandeep Should I tell you some thing, the way Neha stayed with me , she was happy and she was laughing.
After seeing her conduct that day, I can not believe she would falsely implicate me in this manner.
Nidhi Any girl who can proclaim her living father to be dead or one who can claim the love which is like gold to be fake can do anything.
..................................................... Nidhi ........................ I tell you Neha has many boy friends.
..................................................................... Nidhi Her mother will never allow Neha to talk to you.
My brother and Neha are the ones who have falsely implicated you. They both have given false statements to implicate you.
................................................ Sandeep If we get caught, we both will be put behind bars.
Nidhi Even I want that both of us should be put behind
bars then we will live together since I want to live
with you.
34. Taking note of the aforesaid conversations and the evidence on record, it is apparent that Nidhi and Neha were involved with accused Sandeep even prior to the day of incident and they both had developed friendly relations with him Judgment dt. 16.02.2015 in case State Versus Sandeep 19/21 20 over the phone. They had already planned to meet the accused Sandeep on the date of incident i.e 18.05.2009. The perusal of their testimonies also reveal that after making an excuse at Aanganwari, Burari to visit Jhandewalan Mandir, both the victims had traveled to Dwarka Metro Station by metro to meet accused Sandeep and willingly sat in his Santro car with his alleged friend. Just to wriggle out of the mess they had created by spending one night with accused Sandeep which fact was not within the knowledge of their family members, they concocted the incident of kidnapping for ransom and falsely implicated the accused Sandeep. It is also evident that to save the reputation of both the girls i.e Nidhi/PW1 and Neha/PW2, the family members of PW 1 and PW 2 weaved the story of kidnapping for ransom.
35. It is also pertinent that to corroborate the alleged demand for ransom of Rs.5 lacs each by accused Sandeep from mobile phones of victims from the relatives of the victims PW 1/Nidhi and PW 2/Neha The call detail records of the mobiles phones of both the victims and their family members were not examined and brought on record. Since it was alleged by PW1/Nidhi, PW2/Neha, PW3/Krishna Devi, PW4/Vikram Pratap Singh and PW6/Nirmala Singh that the accused Sandeep had made ransom calls from the mobile phones of the victims to the mobile phones of their family members to demand Rs.5 lacs each for the release of the victims, it was not only imperative but the bounden duty of the prosecution to have collected the call details record of aforementioned witnesses. The non collection and examination of the call detail record also thus casts a doubt on the story of the prosecution regarding receipt of ransom calls by the relatives of both the victims.
26. In the light of the aforementioned discussion and observation, I am of the view that the testimonies of the material witnesses PW1/Nidhi, PW2/ Neha, PW 3/ Krishna Devi, PW 4/Vikram Pratap Singh, PW5/Ajay Pandey and PW Judgment dt. 16.02.2015 in case State Versus Sandeep 20/21 21 6/Nirmala Singh can not be relied upon and therefore, the inevitable conclusion is that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the offence U/s 364A r/w Section 34 IPC against the accused Sandeep beyond the shadow of doubt. Accordingly, accused Sandeep is given benefit of doubt and stands acquitted of the offences punishable U/s 364A/34IPC.
Dictated and Announced in open (Hemani Malhotra)
Court on this 16th day of Feb.2015 Addl. Sessions Judge-05
(Central) Tis Hazari Courts
Delhi
Judgment dt. 16.02.2015 in case State Versus Sandeep 21/21