Delhi District Court
State vs Deepak on 8 May, 2024
DLSW010043402015
IN THE COURT OF MS. GURMOHINA KAUR: ADDL.
SESSIONS JUDGE (SOUTH-WEST)-05, Dwarka COURTS:
DELHI
Sessions Case No. 814/2018
CNR No: DLSW01-004340-2015
FIR No. 27/2015
Police Station: Chhawla
Under Section: 365/364A/34 IPC
In the matter of:
State
VERSUS
1. Deepak
S/o Sh. Inder Singh,
R/o H. No. 1805, New Basti,
Rewari, Haryana.
2. Pawan
S/o Sh. Suraj Bhan
R/o H.No. RZ-43, A-Block,
Gopal Nagar, Surkhpur Road,
Najafgarh, New Delhi.
3. Jagdeep
S/o Sh. Kanwal Singh
R/o VPO Hasan Garh, PS Sanpla,
District-Rohtak, Haryana.
State Vs. Deepak & Ors No. 1/68
SC No. 814/2018
Date of filing of the case : 06.05.2015
Date of Reserving judgment : 05.04.2024
Date of Pronouncement : 08.05.2024
JUDGMENT
1. The present case was assigned to the Ld. Predecessor of this court on 06.05.2015 on being committed as the offences alleged against the Accused persons are Session Triable Offences.
2. In the present case, FIR was registered on the complaint of Bhupender Kumar and thereafter chargesheet against the Accused persons namely Deepak, Pawan and Jagdeep was filed for offences punishable under Sections 365/364A/34 IPC.
3. As per the case of the Prosecution, on 18.01.2015 at about 02.30 PM, at Vyayam Shala, Chhawla, New Delhi, accused persons in furtherance of their common intention kidnapped Nikhil @ Goldy aged about 8 years and detained the Nikhil @ Goldy and demanded ransom of Rs. 25 lakhs from his father and threatened to kill the said child, if his father failed to pay the ransom.
4. Charge was framed against accused persons Deepak, Pawan and Jagdeep by Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 26.11.2015 for offences punishable under Sections 364A/34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
State Vs. Deepak & Ors No. 2/68 SC No. 814/20185. In order to prove the charges against the Accused persons, the prosecution examined the following persons namely:-
6. PW-1 Master Nikhil Kumar @ Goldy deposed after the satisfaction of Ld. Predecessor of this Court that child witness was competent to depose before the court that on 18.05.2015, during morning hours, he along with his cousin brother Vansh and his Sister were playing at the park in front of their house, when two persons came to them in a car and started playing with them for two days. He stated that during playing, both persons asked for water and accordingly, he brought the water and they all drank water. He stated that thereafter, both the persons asked him to take juice and they carried him away in the Car. The child witness/victim pointed out to accused persons Deepak and Jagdeep as the two person who had taken him away in their car and he was detained in a rented room for five days. He was put a leading question by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, wherein the child witness was shown the accused Pawan and he stated that accused Pawan was the other person along with accused Jagdeep, who had taken him away in a car. He further admitted that he was taken away by accused Pawan and Jagdeep and not by the other accused persons Deepak.
6.1 During his cross-examination by counsel for accused Pawan, he stated that he did not know in which State Police, his father was working. He further stated that he did not know since when we have been residing at Trishul Colony, Chhawla and State Vs. Deepak & Ors No. 3/68 SC No. 814/2018 prior to the incident in question, we had been living at Najafgarh. He stated further that it was a Sunday on the day of incident and the name of the father of Vansh was Sonu. He further stated that he was tutored by his father as to what to depose in the court and on further query added that he was stating whatever had happened with him.
6.2 The said witness was not cross-examined by Counsel for Accused Deepak and Pawan.
6.3 He was again re-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State wherein he admitted that the date of incident i.e. 18.01.2015.
6.4 During his cross-examination by Ld. counsel for accused Pawan, he stated that it was correct that he had told the date of 18.01.2015 on the asking of Ld. Addl. PP and that he was also remembering the said date.
7. PW-2 HC Jagdish Prasad, deposed that on 18.01.2015, he was working as Duty Officer as Police Station Chhawla and he had recorded the present FIR, Ex.PW-2/A and after registration of case, he had made endorsement on the Tehrir sent by SI Data Ram through Constable Balram, whereon present case was registered and the endorsement Ex.PW-2/B. He stated that he had brought the original computer generated record of the said FIR Ex.PW-2/A (OSR) and after endorsement Ex.PW-2/B. State Vs. Deepak & Ors No. 4/68 SC No. 814/2018 He was not cross-examined by counsels for any of the accused persons.
8. PW-3 Gopal Dass deposed that he was a Mason by Profession and on 18.01.2015, at about 02.00-02.30 PM, when he was present at Vyamshala Park, Chhawla near Trishul Colony, he saw 4-5 children including Nikhil @ Goldy aged about 7-8 years and his Sister aged about 9 years, playing in the Park. He stated that in the meanwhile, a Maruti-800 Car came there and two persons got down and also started playing with the children. He deposed further that after some time, they both had taken away/kidnapped Nikhil in the said car. The said witness pointed towards accused Pawan as the person who along with his associates had taken away Nikhil when he was present in the car. He added that on 23.01.2015, he had gone to PS Chhawla for some personal work, where he found the said car bearing No. DL3CL5065 and he had pointed before IO/SI Data Ram to being used in the commission of the said offence. He stated that IO had recorded his supplementary statement in this regard.
8.1 He was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State wherein he stated that he did not remember if he had visited Dwarka Court complex on 05.02.2015. He denied the suggestion that on 05.02.2015, he had come to Dwarka Court complex, when he pointed out/identified accused Jagdeep while being produced before the Court. He denied the suggestion that he had been won over by accused Jagdeep.
State Vs. Deepak & Ors No. 5/68 SC No. 814/20188.2 During his cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State on 15.11.2016, he stated that he had seen the Car bearing No. DL-3CA-5065, Ex.P1 parked at Dwarka Court Complex and it was the same vehicle which was used by the kidnappers for the commission of offence.
8.3 During his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused Pawan, he stated that Bhupender was well known to him and he was having very cordial relations with Bhupender. He admitted that on 15.11.2016 and 16.09.2016 he was brought to the Court by Bhupender and he stated that residence Bhupender was at about 20 minutes walking distance and again added five minutes. He further stated that he was roaming ideal in the evening as he was free on that day and was inspecting the building which was under his contract for construction and added that at about 05.30 PM, he was informed by some person on telephone that children had been kidnapped. He stated that the son of Bhupender used to play with him almost daily but he could not identify the identity of other boy who was playing with Nikhil at the time of incident. He further stated that as far as he remembered, he was only seen Maruti 800 stationed at the gate of park and at the time he received telephone call, the said vehicle was not there. He further stated that on the day of incident, he had gone to the police station in the company of Bhupender and other villagers along with police officials who had came to the spot but he had not informed anything or of the description to the police officer. He further stated that Bhupender had accompanied him inside the State Vs. Deepak & Ors No. 6/68 SC No. 814/2018 court room and further admitted that Bhupender pointed out towards accused Pawan to him to be the same person who had taken his son. He further admitted that he had identified accused Pawan on the pointing out of Bhupender.
The said witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Deepak and Jagdeep.
9. PW-4 Sh. Bhupender Kumar deposed that he was working as Warden in Tihar Jail and at the time of incident his son Nikhil @ Goldy was about 8 years and his daughter Kiran was of 10 years. He stated that on 18.01.2015, he was at Najafgarh to fetch household articles and at about 02.15-02.30 PM, he received telephonic message from his wife regarding kidnapping of Nikhil by someone in Alto car. He added that he immediately rushed to his house and when he inquired from his wife about Nikhil, she told him that Nikhil was playing along with his friends near Vyayamshala park, when two persons came in Alto car, played with the children for some time and thereafter, they asked Nikhil to fetch water, which was provided by Nikhil and thereafter, they kidnapped Nikhil on the pretext of drinking juice. He stated that the utensil by which Nikhil provided water to those persons was given to his wife by one of his friend namely Vansh and at the time of incident Nikhil was wearing yellow color tshirt, pink color jacket, chocolate color pant and slippers. He stated that thereafter he rang 100 number and besides PCR van staff, two local police official arrived at the spot and one of them was SI Dataram, who had recorded his statement State Vs. Deepak & Ors No. 7/68 SC No. 814/2018 Ex.PW-4/A. He stated that on the third day of missing of Nikhil, a call from the mobile phone of accused persons on his mobile phone no. XXXXXX3061 and a ransom of Rs. 25 lakhs was raised by the kidnappers, who also asked him to board any train towards Ahmedabad via Rewari, which he informed to the police immediately and police immediately took action and constituted a raiding team. He stated that he along with members of raiding party reached PCO booth nearby Rewari Railway station from where accused persons made calls to him.
9.1 During his further examination in chief conducted on 13.02.2017, he stated that after receiving ransom call from accused persons, when he along with raiding party, consisting of 5-7 persons, reached at PCO booth near Rewari Railway Station, the accused persons did not meet them despite they waiting till 11.00 AM of the next day and thereafter, when they were coming back to Delhi, and had reached near Jhajar, he again received the phone call, who demanded money and asked him to board Ahmedabad express, which would come at 04.00 PM at Gurgaon Railway station. He stated some police officials had also joined the raiding party which now consisting of 20-25 police officials. He stated that he boarded in the said train along with 5-7 police officials and remaining police officials left for Rewari Railway Station. He further submitted that he was regularly receiving calls from accused persons during the said journey and they reached Rewari railway station at about 05.00-05.30 PM, where they again received a call from the accused persons and he was State Vs. Deepak & Ors No. 8/68 SC No. 814/2018 asked to reach near the railway container. He stated that at the time of transaction of ransom amount, accused persons Pawan and Deepak were apprehended there by the police and they were interrogated by the police when they disclosed that the kidnapped child was in Vinova Enclave, CRPF Camp, Najafgarh, Delhi. It is further submitted that he along with accused persons went to Vinova Enclave, Najafgarh, Delhi, where accused Jaideep was present along with the child and his child was recovered from him. He identified all the accused persons present in the court. He further deposed that the documents regarding handing over custody of the child was prepared and the handing over memo was Ex.PW-4/B. He further deposed that later Maruti 800 car was recovered from the possession of accused Pawan and the last digit of his registration no. 5065.
9.2 The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, where he admitted that it was possible that the name of a person Jaideep was Jagdeep and admitted that on 22.01.2015, his statement was recorded by the IO Ex.PW-4/PX1. He further admitted that accused Jagdeep was apprehended from a house bearing no. RZC-17, CRPF Vinova Enclave at the instance of accused Pawan and Deepak. He further admitted that car bearing no. DL3CL5065 was used during the commission of the offence in question. He further admitted that on 21.05.2015, he had received call from STD No. 01274-250303 and 01274-258687 and one mobile phone no.XXXXX3040 on his mobile no. XXXXX3061 for ransom of Rs. 25 lakhs. He further stated that State Vs. Deepak & Ors No. 9/68 SC No. 814/2018 at the time of seizing of his mobile phone of Micromax along with one memory card of 4 GB along with one CD converter a Seizure memo Ex.PW-4/PXA was prepared by the IO in his presence.
9.3 On 27.01.2017, the Audio Cassette was produced from parcel no. 1 sealed with the seal of FSL was opened and the audio cassette with cover bearing mark Ex.D1 of FSL was taken out and the said witness stated that he could identify the recorded voice of accused Pawan. On 03.05.2018, he admitted that he had accompanied the child victim for recording his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C and he could identify the sound of the person who had made a telephone call from him for demand of ransom. The MHC(M) produced before the court a sealed envelope sealed with the court seal of GPS and one audio cassette was taken out and played in the court but the sound was not clear.
9.4 On 04.07.2018, a CD is produced by Sh. V.L Narasimhan, Assistant Director, Physics, FSL, regarding the relevant conversation pursuant to the direction of the Ld. Predecessor of this Court, the witness on hearing the conversation of the CD in the laptop, said that the person who had made a call on his mobile phone and identify his voice to be that of accused Pawan and the other voice to be of his. The CD is Ex.P4 and it was observed by the court that after hearing conversation of the CD, it was clear that it was a call of ransom as there was demand of money in lieu of release of child victim. The witness identified State Vs. Deepak & Ors No. 10/68 SC No. 814/2018 his mobile phone Ex.P5 and photograph of car bearing no. DL3CL5061 as Ex.P6 and Ex.P7. The CD produced by MHCM, which was not working was Ex.P8.
9.5 On 01.09.2018, the said witness was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Pawan, the witness PW-4 stated that he did not know whether police recorded statement of his wife in the present case and further stated that his wife did not make a call at 100 number and at about 03.00 PM, he reached at Chhawla Village. He further stated that he did not remember whether he had told to the police that he had reached Chhawla village about 03.00 PM and further stated that he had stated to the police that on 18.01.2015, his wife narrated to him, when he inquired about Nikhil and on this she had told him that Nikhil was playing with his friend at Vyayamshala park and two persons, were there in Alto car, who played with the children for some time and thereafter asked Nikhil for some water and Nikhil provided them water and after some time they took away/kidnapped Nikhil on the pretext that they were going to drink juice. He stated that he went to Rewari in car with the police and he along with police officials had gone to Rewari in 3-4 vehicles. He further stated that police obtained his signature on arrest memo of accused Pawan, Ex.PW-6/A and personal search memo of accused Pawan Ex.PW-7/A and also on the disclosure statement, pointing out memo Ex.PW-6/G, handing over memo of child victim and seizure memo of the car Ex.PW-6/C and seizure memo of phone Ex.PW-6/D from Pawan.
State Vs. Deepak & Ors No. 11/68 SC No. 814/2018 The witness was confronted with these documents, but none of them contained his signatures.
9.6 The witness was also cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for Deepak, wherein denied the suggestion that he had deposed falsely against accused Deepak at the instance of the IO. He admitted that the two boys came in Alto Car and taken away his son, accused Deepak was not one of them and he also admitted that the person, who had demanded ransom was not Deepak. He denied the suggestion that accused Deepak was not arrested in his presence or any disclosure statement of accused Deepak was recorded in his presence nor his personal search was made in his presence. He admitted that as per FIR, his son was kidnapped in Alto Car and the Alto car was recovered from one of the accused and he further admitted that the seizure memo Ex.PW-6/C pertains to recovery of Maruti 800 car. He stated that his son was recovered from Vinova Enclave near CRPF Camp, Jharoda, near Najafgarh. He stated that police handed over the child at his home.
On being handing over memo of the child the said witness on going through the same states that it is not the recovery memo but the handing over memo.
9.7 On 02.02.2019, the said witness was cross-examined by counsel for accused Deepak, who stated that he did not throw the bag containing money anywhere from the moving train and added that he did not remember whether after the registration of State Vs. Deepak & Ors No. 12/68 SC No. 814/2018 FIR, police had recorded his statement or not. He stated that he did not remember whether during inquiry or in his statement, he had told the police officials that he had not thrown away the bag containing money from the train. The witness was confronted with the record and his attention was drawn to the arrest and personal search memos of the accused Deepak Ex.PW6/B and Ex. PW7/B respectively, which did not bear the signatures of the witness, he further admitted that accused Deepak Mark X does not bear any signature anywhere. He stated that the time of recovery of the child, no recovery memo of his child was prepared. He stated that he did not know whether the place had prepared any document at the time of recovery of his child and accused Deepak was arrested from a railway track, Rewari. He further stated that he did not know if accused Deepak was arrested at CIA staff at Dharuhera vat 11.50 pm on 21.01.2015. He stated that he had heard from the police officials that accused Deepak had come on a scooty and the custody of the child was formally handed over to him to his home. He stated that the raiding team of 20-25 police officials were of Haryana and Delhi Police. He denied the suggestion that he was not arrested in my presence or that he was already present at CIA staff. He denied the suggestion that accused Deepak had been falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of Delhi and Haryana Police.
9.8 The said witness was also cross examined by Counsel for accused Pawan wherein he stated that the bag was containing Rs. 17 lakh and the same was of black colour. He stated that he did State Vs. Deepak & Ors No. 13/68 SC No. 814/2018 not know if the police had prepared any inventory of the said bag. He further stated that in 2015, his salary was around Rs.38,000 per month. He stated that he had borrowed Rs. 17 lakhs from his relatives in one day and he had not told in any of his statements that Rs. 16 lakhs was arranged by him from his relatives. He further stated that he did not remember the name of the train and the timings of the same, in which they had boarded and he did not know if the members of the raiding team had purchased railway ticket. He further stated that he and the raiding team members had gone to Rewari Railway station in the first instance by 4-5 cars and they had reached Rewari Railway station at midnight and at about 12 am. He stated that he was sitting with the police in one car. He stated that he was not aware whether the police officials had recorded the statement of PCO booth owners or any of his employees. He denied the suggestions that accused Pawan had been falsely implicated or that accused Pawan had demanded any ransom from him.
9.9 During his cross examination by counsel for accused Jagdeep, he stated that he was not known to accused Jagdeep. He stated that there was a circular road around his village and the same was known was Phirney. He stated that road was connected with Vyayam Shala. He further stated that at the time of incident he used to attend night duty, he had gone out to bring some house good articles. He stated that for his visit to Rewari, he had not taken any leave from his office. He stated that the police officials had not made any inquiry regarding the place from where his son State Vs. Deepak & Ors No. 14/68 SC No. 814/2018 was taken from him. He admitted that neither him or any of the raiding party members had made any arrival entry at the local police station at Rewari. He also stated that he did not remember if the police officials had collected any documentary proof from the owner of the house at Vinova Enclave, CRPF camp, Najafgarh and no photographer had accompanied them at Vinova Enclave, CRPF camp Najafgarh.
9.10 The witness was recalled for cross examination under section 311 CrPC after the application was allowed vide order dated 17.02.2024 wherein he was cross examined by LAC for accused Pawan and Jagdeep and he stated that he had shown the place from where the child victim was kidnapped to the IO and that he did not remember if the IO had made site plan of the place of kidnapping of his son. He further admitted that vyayam shala had a boundary wall 7-8 feet in height. He also stated that PW9 Vansh was the grandson of his bua and admitted that the distance between the house of PW9 Vansh and Vyayam Shala was about 500-700 metre. He stated that his cousin brother Dharmender Yadav was working in Haryana Police and he had consulted his cousin brother, but he did not know if his cousin Dharmender and ASI Hansraj went for training together. He stated that he was not on duty in Jail No 1 in the year 2013-2014, where accused Pawan was detained. He denied the suggestion that during the period 2013-2014 of his duty in Jail no. 1, he had some difference with accused Pawan and in order to take revenge, he had lodged the present case against accused Pawan.
State Vs. Deepak & Ors No. 15/68 SC No. 814/2018 He stated there were about 3-4 ransom calls from STD( landline) on his mobile phone and he did not remember the number of ransom calls received by him from mobile phone on that day. He stated that the first call came from STD/ landline and he did not remember now which call he got recorded on his mobile phone.
10. PW-5 Dr. Mahesh Kumar deposed that on 22.01.2015, he was posted as CMO aat RTRM Hospital and on that day, one boy Nikhil @ Goldy aged about 8 years was brought before him for his medical examination by one HC Krishan and he medically examined him and reduced the same in MLC, Ex. PW5/A . The said witness was not cross examined by counsel for any of the accused persons.
11. PW 6 HC Vikas Kumar deposed that on 20.01.2015 deposed that on 20.01.2015, he was posted as constable in PS Chawla and had accompanied IO namely SI Data Ram to Rewari. He deposed that HC Krishan and complainant Bhupender had accompanied them. He stated that they reached Dharuhera in the evening and with the aid of secret informer, on the basis of suspicion, two persons were apprehended who were Pawan Kumar and the name of the other person, he was not able to recollect. He stated that they were apprehended at Dharuhera. The witness pointed out to accused Deepak and stated that he was accused Pawan and pointed to accused Pawan stating that he was the other person. He further deposed that the mobile phone instrument of each of these two accused persons were recovered State Vs. Deepak & Ors No. 16/68 SC No. 814/2018 from them at Dharuhera and they were brought to Delhi. He stated that some paperwork was done at Dharuhera by IO but he did not remember what was such paperwork. He stated that they reached Delhi at midnight and the accused persons were interrogated at Police station. He stated that both the accused persons led the police party to a colony, perhaps Vinova Bhave enclave, at Najafgarh and at the said colony at the instance of the accused persons, the kidnapped boy Nikhil @ Goldy was recovered at a house in the night, time of which he did not remember. He stated that kidnapped child Nikhil @ Goldy was recovered from the possession of the accused Jagdeep (correctly identified) from the aforesaid house at the said colony. He deposed that from the PS, accused Pawan or Jagdeep led them to a colony at Najafgarh and from a house, a small vehicle of make Maruti whose number he did not remember, was recovered as it was used for kidnapping the said boy, which was seized vide seizure memo, Ex. PW6/C and brought to the PS. He stated that the pointing out memos by accused Jagdeep and Pawan were Ex. PW 6/F and Ex. PW6/G respectively. He deposed that the Maruti 800 car bearing no DL 3CL 5065 was Ex.P3 and the witness also identified the Metrotel mobile phone with TATA SIM GSM, already Ex. P1 and black phone make Micromax A54 containing Idea SIM, already Ex. P2.
11.1 During his cross examination by counsel for accused persons namely Pawan and Jagdeep, he was confronted with his statement under Section 161 CrPC regarding his examination in State Vs. Deepak & Ors No. 17/68 SC No. 814/2018 chief, where he had not stated that about accompanying HC Krishan and complainant to Rewari not that they had reached Dharuhera at night or about any secret informer. He stated that he did not remember the exact spot from where accused Pawan was apprehended in Dharuhera and when accused Pawan was apprehended, he was on foot. He further stated that IO recorded the statement of accused Pawan in Dharuhera and accused Pawan was taken to CIA office in Dharuhera and his statement was recorded in CIA office. He stated that he did not remember the make of the vehicle in which accused Pawan was brought to PS Chhawla and further stated that they reached PS Chhawla on 22.01.2015 at about 1.30 am. He stated that the house in Najafgarh where they reached was a residential colony in Vinova Bhave and the accused persons took them to the first floor. He stated that the door was knocked by the IO and it was opened by the owner of the house, but he did not remember his name. He stated that the raiding party along with the accused persons went to the first floor and accused Jagdeep along with the victim were found present in the house. The said witness was not cross examined by counsel for accused Deepak.
12. PW-7 ASI Krishan Kumar deposed that on 20.01.2015 he along with IO/SI Data Ram and other staff went to Rewari for investigation and the father of the child had also accompanied them and he was receiving ransom calls from some persons and those persons were asking the father of the child to meet them after crossing the Rewari Railway station and throw the money State Vs. Deepak & Ors No. 18/68 SC No. 814/2018 near the railway containers. He stated that on this information, on the directions of the senior officials, the IO and the staff were deployed in civil dress after crossing the railway station and they all went to Rewari in train and he along with the father of the child got down at the station next to Rewari. He deposed that the father of the child made a call to the IO and IO asked him to reach Dharuhera. He stated that when they reached Dharuhera, they found that the IO had apprehended two persons and was interrogating them. He stated that the personal search memos of the accused Pawan and Deepak were Ex. PW7/A and Ex. PW7/B respectively and he also identified accused persons Pawan and Deepak present in the court. He stated that they returned to Delhi and accused Pawan disclosed that the child victim was in the custody of accused Jagdeep at CRPF camp, C-7, Vinova Bhanu Enclave and he along with the IO, father of the child, Ct. Pritam, Ct. Vikas and other staff went to the given address and accused Pawan got the door of the accused opened. He deposed that accused Jagdeep was interrogated about the child victim and the child victim was found sleeping in the house of accused Jagdeep. He stated that accused Jagdeep was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW7/C and his personal search memo was Ex. PW7/D. He deposed that the child victim was recovered from the house of the accused Jagdeep and a recovery memo was prepared and they returned back to the police station. He stated that they had gone to the house of accused Jagdeep on 22.01.2015 and accused Jagdeep was staying in a rented accommodation and a vehicle/car was also recovered from his house vide recovery memo already State Vs. Deepak & Ors No. 19/68 SC No. 814/2018 Ex. PW6/C. He identified the mobile phones Ex. P1 ,Ex. P2 and Ex. P3.
12.1 During his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused Deepak, he denied the suggestion that he had never joined investigation in this case or that he was introduced as witness later on or that day his signatures were obtained on various memos by the IO later on. He stated that IO had recorded his statement on 22.01.2015 in PS Chhawla and he did not remember the time but it was evening. He admitted that accused Deepak was arrested by CIA team Dharuhera and he did not know where the Scooter number HR36W8228 was kept and seized. He admitted that the kidnapped boy was not recovered at the pointing out of accused Deepak or from his possession. He admitted that Car Ex.P3 was neither recovered at the pointing out of accused Deepak or from his possession. He also admitted that Car Ex.P3 was Maruti Car and not 800 and further admitted that car Ex.P3 was having both broken head light, broken right hand side indicator, left side front tyre completely worn out, right side fender damaged, windshield not available, all seats broken and all the tyres of different brands. He further stated that he did not known whether Car Ex.P3 was in working condition or not and also admitted that both the accused persons were not apprehended in his presence. He stated that the IO prepared, the recovery memo of the kidnapped boy but he had not signed it.
12.2 PW-7 was also cross-examined by Counsel for accused State Vs. Deepak & Ors No. 20/68 SC No. 814/2018 Jagdeep, wherein he was confronted with his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C Mark D1. He further stated that he returned from Rewari in private car and he did not know the registration of that car. He further stated that he also did not remember the make, model of the car and also did not the name of owner. He stated that IO had not taken any document with regard to the tenancy of the house of accused Jagdeep in his presence and from the owner of the house and IO had not demanded any ownership document of the said house. He stated that in his presence, IO had not taken photograph of the recovery of said boy. He stated that in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, it has not been stated that he along with the IO, father of the child, Constable Pritam and Constable Vikas went to CRPF camp, C-7 Vinova Bhave Enclave and he admitted that he also not stated that accused Jagdeep was interrogated about the child victim or that the child victim was sleeping in the house of accused Jagdeep.
12.3 During his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused Pawan, he stated that he could not tell the name of the train, by which they went to Rewari and neither they had taken any ticket. He stated that the complainant had not kept any currency notes at the time of leaving for recovery and IO had not given any information to Railway police at Rewari Station in respect of the presence of caller, near the railway crossing station to keep a watch. He further admitted that Dharuhera does not fall between and Rewari Railway Station and admitted that there was no train State Vs. Deepak & Ors No. 21/68 SC No. 814/2018 that goes to Dharuhera. He stated that IO did not receive any call in respect of recovery of child in his presence and he further stated that the complainant was present in Rewari with them and had not gone to any other place. He stated that except the Rewari Railway Station, they had not gone to any other place and he could not say whether the signature of accused Pawan were taken on his arrest memo. He further stated that they reached Delhi through a Car but he could not tell the time when they reached police station.
13. PW-8 Parveen Das, deposed that he does not remember the exact date but one day, when he was sleeping at home, some police officials came to his home and noted his details. He stated that he never kept any tenant in his premises and besides that nothing had happened.
He denied the suggestions put forth by Ld. Addl. PP for the State and the said witness was not cross-examined by counsels for any of the accused persons.
14. PW-9 Vansh, deposed that Nikhil was his cousin and he did not remember the exact date, month and year of the incident. He stated that on the day of incident he was playing cricket with Nikhil and two other boys in the park of Chhawla, while two persons came in car and they started playing with them. He stated that they offered them juice however, he refused the offer, but Nikhil went with two persons for drinking juice in their white color car. He further deposed that he went to house of Nikhil and State Vs. Deepak & Ors No. 22/68 SC No. 814/2018 told the family members that Nikhil had gone with those two persons in their car. He stated that he could not identify the accused persons due to lapse of time. He was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State on the point of identification of the accused persons and some other material facts, wherein he stated that he could not say that the date of incident was 18.01.2015, however, he stated that it was winter season when the incident took place. He further stated that he could not state that whether the incident took place at 02.30 PM but added that time of alleged incident pertains to afternoon. He further shown accused Pawan and Jagdeep and the witness identified accused Pawan being one of the two persons, who took Nikhil with them in the Car and witness stated that he was not sure whether accused Jagdeep was one of the other two persons, who had taken Nikhil and stated that the other persons seems to have reduced weight and it was possibility that he was one of them. He further admitted that he was not able to identify the second accused due to lapse of time.
14.1 PW-9 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Pawan and Jagdeep, wherein he stated that the distance between his house and the place of incident was 400 meter and the house of Nikhil was situated near the park. He stated that the white car used by the accused persons was parked outside the park and he did not remember the name of other boys except Nikhil, with whom he was playing cricket. He stated that he do not remember the clothes worn by Nikhil as it was an old matter. He stated that State Vs. Deepak & Ors No. 23/68 SC No. 814/2018 he immediately informed the family members of Nikhil that two persons had taken Nikhil with them. He stated that the two persons played cricket with them for one hour and he further admitted that he identified accused persons during his deposition on 02.11.2022 only on the basis of guess work and he was not sure whether the said two accused persons were actually the persons, who had taken Nikhil with them due to lapse of time.
He was not cross-examined by counsel for accused Deepak.
15. PW-10 HC Balram, deposed that on receipt of DD No. 21 A, he along with SI Data Ram reached the spot at Vyayamshala, Pacchiya Mohalla, Village Chhawla, New Delhi, where the complainant met them and SI Data Ram recorded his statement and prepared rukka. He stated that he brought the rukka to the PS and got the FIR registered through Duty Officer and after registering the case, he returned to the spot with copy of FIR and rukka and handed over the same to SI Data Ram.
15.1 During his cross-examined by counsel for accused Deepak, he denied the suggestion that he had never reached the spot with SI Data Ram and further denied the suggestion that rukka was prepared in his presence.
He was not cross-examined by Counsel for accused persons Pawan and Jagdeep.
16. PW-11 ASI Manoj Kumar, deposed that on 30.03.2015, State Vs. Deepak & Ors No. 24/68 SC No. 814/2018 he recorded the statement of Master Nikhil under Section 164 Cr.P.C and application for recording the same was Ex.PW-11/A. He stated that copy of statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C was provided to them on his request.
He was not cross-examined by Counsels for any of the accused persons.
17. PW-12 SI Shiv Kumar, deposed that on 21.01.2015, he was posted at CIA-II, Dharuhera and on that day SI Data Ram of Delhi Police along with HC Vikas and 2-3 constables came to their office at CIA-II Dharuhera. He stated that accused Pawan and Deepak (correctly identified), who were already in custody of CIA staff were interrogated by SI Dataram and thereafter, two mobile phone was recovered from accused Pawan. He stated that both the accused persons made their disclosure statement, in which they stated that Jagdeep had kept the kidnapped child in a room in colony at near CRPF camp, Chhawla. He stated that after preparing the documents regarding the arrest of accused Deepak and Pawan, Ex.PW-6/A, Ex.PW-6/B, they left the office of CIA with the accused persons at Chhawla and both accused persons were brought to PS Chhawla, where they were further interrogated. He further stated that they reached the place as told by the accused persons in colony CRPF, Camp Chhawla, they found one car bearing no. 5065 and the kidnapped child namely Nikhil @ Goldy was found in the room with co-accused Jagdeep(correctly identified). He further deposed that one mobile phone was recovered from accused Jagdeep which was seized State Vs. Deepak & Ors No. 25/68 SC No. 814/2018 vide seizure memo Ex.PW-6/E and after the recovery of the said child, IO SI Data Ram relieved the staff of CIA Haryana including him. He identified the case property P1 to P3.
17.1 During his cross-examination by Counsel for accused Deepak, he denied the suggestion that he had deposed falsely and he had never joined investigation. He stated that his statement was recorded by the IO at the office of CIA-II, Dharuhera, partly and it was completed after recovery of car and child. He further admitted that he had not stated in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C that it was recorded partly at CIA Dharuhera and further admitted that seizure memo of car Ex.PW-6/C does not bear his signature and admitted that he had not specifically mentioned in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C that police officials of Delhi Police had come to their office at CIA-II, Dharuhera.
He was not cross-examined by counsel for accused Pawan and Jagdeep.
18. PW-13 W/SI Gayatri, stated that on 18.01.2015, she was posted as Duty Officer and had recorded DD NO. 21A at 03.40 PM Ex.PW-13/A on receipt of an information on control room through wireless that two persons had kidnapped the boy namely Nikhil in a white color car.
He was not cross-examined by counsel for accused Pawan and Jagdeep.
19. PW-14 V. Laxmi Narsimhan, Assistant Director Physics, State Vs. Deepak & Ors No. 26/68 SC No. 814/2018 FSL Rohini, deposed that on 16.04.2015, three parcels were received in FSL which were marked to him for examination and the seal of the parcel was found intact. He deposed that the parcels were opened and the question voice in the mobile phone Mark X2 and CD Mark X3 and specimen voice in audio cassette Mark X1 were examined/compared by him and the voice exhibit of speaker Mark Ex.Q1 and Ex.S1 were the voice of the same person .i.e. Mr. Pawan. He stated that his detailed report Ex.PW- 14/A. He was not cross-examined by counsel for accused persons.
19.1 The witness was recalled for his cross-examination under application under Section 311 Cr.P.C, which was allowed by this court vide order dated 17.02.2024.
19.2 During his cross-examination by Ld. LAC for accused Jagdeep and Pawan on 01.03.2024, he stated that on the basis of voice analysis, the age of voice recording could not be ascertained and he had a worksheet for comparing the voice through auditory as well as acoustic analysis but he had not brought the same and stated that it was preserved in his office. He further stated that during auditory analysis they observed linguistic feature, delivery of speech, prosodic and also temporal features. He further admitted that he had not mentioned about the said parameters in his report. He further admitted that he had not attached the report of acoustic analysis of speech sample, which State Vs. Deepak & Ors No. 27/68 SC No. 814/2018 were compared through computerized speech lab. He stated that the accuracy of the sample speech was not measured in their method and therefore, he could to specify the percentage of accuracy. He stated that he could not tell the number of recordings in mobile phone Ex.P2 and stated that he had only examined two files which were relevant with respect to the specimen voice sample. He further stated that he did not check another recording for analysis of voice sample. He further stated that he had not mentioned the time and date of recording in the mobile phone in his report and had also not mentioned in his report the mobile number from which the calls were made by the caller.
20. PW-15 Sh. Gopal Singh Chauhan, ADJ-03/West, deposed that on 22.01.2015, he was posted as MM at Dwarka District and on that day, application for conducting TIP of accused Jagdeep and Pawan was moved by IO which was marked to him by Ld. MM. He stated that accused Jagdeep and Pawan were produced before him by IO SI Data Ram in muffled face and they were explained about the meaning of TIP. He further stated that accused persons did not want to join the TIP proceedings despite being told about the adverse inference against them in case of refusal but they still refused to TIP proceedings. The TIP proceedings were Ex.PW-15/A and his certificate was Ex.PW-15/B. He further deposed that the application for TIP was Ex.PW-15/C. He further deposed that on 30.03.2015, an application for recording statement of 164 Cr.P.C State Vs. Deepak & Ors No. 28/68 SC No. 814/2018 of master Goldy was marked to him by Ld. Link MM and Master Nikhil Kumar @ Goldy along with his father were produced before him by HC Manoj Kumar on behalf of the IO. He stated that after recording of preliminary question, he was satisfied that master Nikhil was in a fit condition to understand the meaning, purpose and implication of his statement and was able to give voluntary statement. He further stated that he recorded the statement of Master Nikhil Ex.PW-1/A and the statement of HC Manoj regarding indentification of Master Nikhil was Ex.PW- 15/D and his certificate regarding the true account and correctness of the statement Ex.PW-15/E. He was not cross-examined by counsels for any of the accused persons.
21. PW-16 Rakesh Kumar, deposed that in the year 2015, he had taken a Maruti 800 car bearing no. 5065 of DL, complete number, which he did not remember now from one Sh. Anup and after some time, he sold said car to someone but due to lapse of time, he was not recollecting the name and address of the buyer. He stated that the ownership of the said car was not transferred by him in his name and the police never him with connection with this case.
21.1 Witness was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, wherein he denied the suggestion that he had sold the said car to Pawan Kumar and stated that he did not remember, if the complete registration number of the said car was DL-3CL-5065.
State Vs. Deepak & Ors No. 29/68 SC No. 814/2018 He admitted that the affidavit dated 03.01.2015 bears his signature at point A. He was not cross-examined by counsel for accused Deepak.
21.2 During his cross-examination by LAC for accused Pawan and Jagdeep, he stated that 21/22.01.2015, police came to his home and had taken the above mentioned car form his home and also taken his signatures on 2-3 documents.
22. PW-17 ASI Suresh Kumar, deposed that on 25.03.2015, on instruction of IO, he had taken the accused Pawan to FSL Rohini for his voice sample and after the voice sample of accused Pawan taken by the official of FSL, the cassette of recording of voice sample was handed over to him, which he seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-17/A. He stated that till the time the cassette remained in his custody, the same was not tampered with.
He was not cross-examined by counsel for accused Deepak.
22.1 During his cross-examination by LAC for accused Pawan and Jagdeep, he stated that he did not remember any document regarding taking accused Pawan from Jail to FSL was handed over to him by Jail Superintendent to hand over the same to IO. He stated that he did not remember, whether IO had recorded his statement and he also could not tell the name of the officer of State Vs. Deepak & Ors No. 30/68 SC No. 814/2018 FSL who had recorded the voice of accused Pawan. He further admitted that he was not present during the recording of voice of accused Pawan in the room. He stated that the cassette which were handed over to him were easily available in the market and no handing over/taking over memo was prepared in respect of seal of DR used by him. He stated that he could not tell the serial number of register no. 19 of depositing voice cassette in malkhana.
23. PW-18 HC Rambir, deposed that on 16.04.2015, on the instruction of IO, he had taken three sealed pullandas, pertaining to the present case to FSL Rohini, after taking the same from MHCM. He stated that he had deposited the pullanda in the FSL and obtained the receipt, which he handed over to the MHCM. He stated that till the time pullanda was in his custody, the same was not tampered with.
He was not cross-examined by counsel for accused Deepak.
23.1 During his cross-examination by LAC for accused Pawan and Jagdeep, he stated that he do not remember whether IO had recorded his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C and further stated that, he did not remember, whether he had signed Register no. 19 to receive the pullanda and he did not remember the name of the seal on the pullanda.
24. PW-19 Inspector Devender Kumar, deposed that on State Vs. Deepak & Ors No. 31/68 SC No. 814/2018 04.04.2015, the investigation of the present case was assigned to him. He stated that during investigation the exhibits pertaining to this case were sent to FSL Rohini and he also examined witnesses and recording their statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He stated that on completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed.
24.1 During his cross-examination by LAC for accused Pawan and Jagdeep, he stated that no DD entry was made regarding handing over of investigation to him and stated he did not investigate in regard to voice, playing with the kidnapped child on the date of incident .i.e. 18.01.2015 in the park except Vansh. He stated that he did not record the statement of the sister of the child victim and denied the suggestion that he did not do so because she was not supporting the prosecution version. He stated that he did not remember, whether any CCTV footage in the nearby area to locate the accused persons in the park or near the park. He admitted that the complainant Bhupender was employee of Tihar Jail and he did not remember, whether accused Pawan was detained in Tihar Jail in relation to the case under Section 376 IPC which was against his relative.
24.2 During his cross-examination by counsel for accused Deepak, he admitted that he was never the part of the investigation in the present case along with SI Data Ram prior to 04.04.2015 and further admitted that he had not filed the call details between accused Deepak and other two accused persons State Vs. Deepak & Ors No. 32/68 SC No. 814/2018 Pawan and Jagdeep along with the chargesheet, though, he had stated so in his report under Section 173 Cr.P.C that he had requested for the calls details of the complainant and accused persons. It is correct that he had not filed the calls details of complainant Bhupender.
25. PW-20 SI Data Ram, deposed that on 18.01.2015 on receipt of DD No. 21 A, he along with Constable Balram, reached the spot near Vyamshala Chhawla, where complainant Bhupender met them and gave his statement. He stated that he prepared the rukka Ex.PW-20/A and sent Constable Balram to PS for registration of FIR. He further deposed that on 20.01.2015, ransom call was received on the mobile phone of Bhupender, wherein the caller demanded Rs. 25 lakhs for release of his son and on enquiry it was revealed that the said call was made to the complainant from the PCO at near railway station Rewari, Haryana. He further stated that on 21.01.2015, he along with Constable Krishan, Pritam, Vikas, Complainant and secret informer and 1-2 relatives of complainant, reached Rewari, Haryana, where he contacted the CIA staff of Dharuhera. He stated that ASI Hansraj and other officials, whose name he could not recollect came to CIA Dharuhera. He further stated that with the help of survelience, the mobile phone location of accused Pawan was traced and his location was found near railway station. He stated that all of them except the secret informer along with the CIA staff reached Rewari railway station, where accused Pawan and Deepak were found (correctly identified). He State Vs. Deepak & Ors No. 33/68 SC No. 814/2018 stated that accused persons were apprehended and interrogated by him and brought to the office of CIA Dharuhera. He stated that thereafter, both the accused persons were arrested. He further deposed that he recorded the disclosure statement of accused persons, where they disclosed that the kidnapped child was with their associates Jagdeep, at Vinovabhave Enclave, near CRPF Camp, Najafgarh, the disclosure statement of accused Pawan was Ex.PW-20/B and disclosure statement of accused Deepak was Ex.PW-20/C. He stated that he made DD Entry no. 11 at CIA-II, Dharuhera, regarding arrival and the information and departure for Delhi Ex.PW-20/D and thereafter, both the accused persons lead the police party to Vinovabhave Enclave, near CRPF Camp, Najafgarh, New Delhi, where accused Jagdeep (correctly identified) was found and the kidnapped child Nikhil was recovered from his custody. He stated that he prepared the recovery memo already Ex.PW-4/B and accused Jagdeep was arrested and his disclosure statement Ex.PW-20/F was recorded by him. He stated that all the accused persons had disclosed about the vehicle used in kidnapping and the same was recovered from them near Vinovabhave Enclave, near CRPF Camp, Najafgarh and the Car bearing no. DL3CL5065 make Maruti 800 was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-6/C. He further deposed regarding the investigation of the case and added that the conversation of the ransom call was recorded by the complainant on his mobile phone and he prepared the transcript of the said conversation Ex.PW-20/F and the complainant handed over the CD of the said conversation which was seized vide seizure memo State Vs. Deepak & Ors No. 34/68 SC No. 814/2018 Ex.PW-4/C. He further deposed that he got recorded this statement of kidnapped child under Section 164 Cr.P.C and requested for TIP of accused Jagdeep and Pawan. He stated that he had collected the attested copy of TIP proceedings Ex.PW- 20/G. He also deposed that the voice sample of accused Pawan was taken after seeking permission of this court and his request to Director FSL was Ex.PW-20/H. 25.1 During his examination in chief conducted on 04.01.2024, the CD Ex.P8 was tried to be played before the Court but the same could not be played as it appeared to be corrupted as per the concerned staff of computer branch.
25.2 During his examination in chief conducted on 16.01.2024, the CD, Ex.P8 again was tried to be played on the laptop by the witness but the same did not play and appeared to be corrupt.
25.3 Witness was thereafter cross-examined by Counsel for accused Deepak, wherein he admitted that he was the first IO and started investigating the case on 18.01.2015 itself. He further admitted that he did not send any request for interception of the mobile phone of the complainant to higher official, to legally intercept and record the calls received on the mobile phone of the complainant. He also admitted that missing person advertisement was already broad-casted on Zonal Integrated Police Network .i.e. ZIP Net on 18.01.2015 and further admitted that Haryana Police is the member of ZIP Net. He also admitted that the said State Vs. Deepak & Ors No. 35/68 SC No. 814/2018 information on the ZIP net must have been received by Haryana Police on 18.01.2015 prior to his visit in Rewari on 21.01.2015. He denied the suggestion that accused Pawan and Deepak were not arrested by him in the manner as he has stated in his examination in chief and further denied the suggestion that on 21.01.2015, accused Pawan had already been detained by the staff of CIA Dharuhera in connection of the present case and on that basis he visited there and shown him arrested. He further denied the suggestion that in the evening of 21.01.2015, accused Deepak had gone to CIA office Dharuhera on his scooty bearing no. HR36W8229 to report about a jhagda in a drunken state when he was detained by CIA staff and falsely implicated in the present case. He admitted that when he was the IO, he did not send any request to telecom companies to provide the call details, Cell ID location chart of complainant Bhupender, of accused Pawan, Jagdeep and Deepak or the PCO Booth from where the alleged ransom calls were received on the mobile phone of the complainant. He admitted that he had not moved any TIP application for identification of accused Deepak by child victim Nikhil as a person who had kidnapped and detained him or had got him recovered from the place of detention.
25.4 During his further cross examination by counsel for accused Deepak on 09.02.2024, he admitted that he had recorded the statement of Praveen Dass i.e. owner of the house of CRPF camp on 22.01.2015 and admitted that Mr. Praveen Dass has not stated in his statement that accused Deepak had pointed out to H. State Vs. Deepak & Ors No. 36/68 SC No. 814/2018 No. RZ-C-17, Vinobhave Enclave, CRPF Camp, Najafgarh, or that he had ever seen accused Deepak at the said address before that. He also admitted that he had not prepared any pointing out memo of accused Deepak pointing out to be place of kidnapping i.e. Vyayamshala, Pachiya Mohalla, Chawla. He stated that on 20.01.2015, they left from PS Chawla at about 10.00 PM for Rewari and reached Rewari at about 12.00 midnight on 20/21.01.2015. He admitted that DD No. 11 i.e. Ex.PW-20/D was a last document prepared at CIA Dharuhera and further admitted that the arrest memo, personal search memo and disclosure statement of accused Deepak does not bear the signature of complainant Bhupender. He admitted that he had not recorded the statement of 1-2 relatives of Bhupender, who had gone to Rewari with them on 21.01.2015. He further deposed that on 21.01.2015 at CIA Dharuhera, he had first of all prepared the arrest memo of accused Pawan and thereafter, prepared the arrest memo of accused Deepak and personal search memo and disclosure statement of Deepak. He admitted that the disclosure statement of accused Deepak stated that accused Pawan had accompanied police to the residence of Jagdeep and got the child recovered. He admitted that the disclosure statement of accused Deepak Ex.PW-20/C, was written after the recovery of the child victim. He admitted that the arrest memo of Deepak does not bear the signature of Inder Singh and he did not remember how he informed Inder Singh about the arrest of accused Deepak. He admitted that the arrest memo of accused Deepak was prepared at 11.50 PM on 21.01.2015 at CIA Dharuhera and he also admitted State Vs. Deepak & Ors No. 37/68 SC No. 814/2018 that the disclosure statement of accused Deepak would have been recorded after 11.50 PM on 21.01.2015. He stated that he left CIA Dharuhera at about 12.15 AM on 22.01.2015 and he further admitted that DD NO. 11 dated 21.01.2015 Ex.PW-20/D states that they had left from CIA Dharuhera at about 11.30 PM. He further admitted that he had not prepared any farad baramdagi i.e. child recovery memo at the instance of accused Deepak and admitted that the farad hawalagi .i.e. child handing over memo was an undated and unsigned documents by complainant Bhupender and any other witness. He stated that he reached Vinobhave Enclave at about 01.30 AM on 22.01.2015 and admitted that seizure memo of car Ex.PW-6/C does not bear the signature of accused Deepak and bear the date 21.01.2015. He admitted that he had not filed by train ticket and bus ticket through which the police party and complainant had travelled on 20.01.2015 and admitted that he had not recorded the statement of owner of PCO Booth at Railway Station Rewari and he had also not filed any CDR showing calls details between accused Deepak with other co-accused persons Pawan and Jagdeep.
25.5 During his cross-examination by Ld. LAC for accused Pawan and Jagdeep, he stated that during his investigation, the clothes worn by the suspect i.e. red color and white color coat were got recovered from the accused persons. He stated that no site plan of the alleged spot of abduction was prepared. He stated that complainant had conversation with him and he directed the complainant to record the calls and no other calls were recorded State Vs. Deepak & Ors No. 38/68 SC No. 814/2018 in the phone of the complainant after this direction except the present ransom call. He stated that 4-5 calls were received on the phone of complainant and all the 5 ransom calls were recorded in the phone of the complainant. He stated that the first ransom call was received from PCO Rewari at the phone of the complainant and he had not attached the ownership of such PCO at Rewari. He further stated that there were calls from other PCOs and same was his reply qua them. He further stated that there was a transcript of recording only one call on court file which was in his handwriting and no certificate under Section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act was given by the complainant for recording of the same nor I asked him for the same. He stated that the mobile phone of complainant Bhupender containing the recording of the ransom calls was sent to FSL and the last ransom call was also from some mobile number but he could not say whose mobile phone was that. He further stated that he did not request any cellular company for giving the details of the subscriber of the mobile phone by which the alleged ransom call was made. He further stated that complainant Bhupender was working in Tihar Jail. He admitted that during investigation he came to know that accused Pawan, was accused in a case of rape under Section 376 IPC and had gone to custody in Tihar Jail with the main accused Sunny from October 2013 to February 2014.
25.6 During his further cross-examination by Ld. LAC for accused Pawan and Jagdeep on 09.02.2024, he stated that he did not know if complainant Bhupender was posted in Jail in which State Vs. Deepak & Ors No. 39/68 SC No. 814/2018 accused Pawan was lodged in the said case and he also did not know whether there was some dispute between accused Pawan and complainant Bhupender. He stated that the vyayamshala was talaab type field which had dried up and it contained grasses, some bushes and in some portion of that field some children used to play. He further stated that it did not contain any bench for public and said vyayamshala was situated inside the village. He further stated that house of complainant Bhupender was within 50 yards from Vyayamshala and he did not observe any CCTV camera in that area from the area alleged suspect might have come for abduction and left after abducting the child. He also stated that he did not mention the names of child who were playing with the child in question and no neighbours surrounding the vyayamshala supported the version of children playing in the vyayamshala in that day and hence, he did not record the statement of anyone. He further stated that PW-9 Vansh's family was the neighbour of complainant Bhupender and further admitted that the alleged vehicle used in the crime does not exist in the name of accused Pawan in the RC of the vehicle. He stated that complainant Bhupender intimated him about the different calls at different times. He admitted that in case diary no. 3, does not bear the time of ransom calls and stated that the last ransom call was about 21.01.2015 at about 06.00 PM. He further stated that as per CD No. 5, dated 21.05.2015, it was mentioned that call was made from mobile phone number XXXXXX3040 but the time of the same was not mentioned in the case diary. He stated that he did not collect the CDR of the State Vs. Deepak & Ors No. 40/68 SC No. 814/2018 above mobile number of accused Pawan and also could not say in whose name, the said mobile phone number exists. He stated that they 5-7 people along with complainant and his relatives left PS Chawla by private vehicle and he could not tell the make and registration number of the vehicle or the name of the vehicle. He stated that there were 3-4 vehicle and he also could not tell the names of the relatives of complainant Bhupender. He stated that they reached Rewari railway station at platform no. 2 at about 08.00-09.00 PM and he did not remember the time of remaining at platform no. 2 railway station. He further stated that the apprehension of the accused persons at the distance of about 12 kilometer from Rewari Railway Station and no statement of any person was recorded to show the presence of police officials at that time at Rewari Railway Station. He stated that he arrested the accused persons with the help of CIA-II Dharuhera staff, who met them at platform no. 2 of Rewari, railway station. He admitted that the relative of complainant Bhupender was in Haryana police and he did not know whether he was posted at Faridabad and no videography and photography was done of apprehension of accused persons at Anaaz Mandi, Rewari and added that accused persons were apprehended by the staff of CIA Dharuhera at Anaaz Mandi Rewari and had taken them to CIA Dharuhera. He stated that the arrest memo were not prepared by CIA staff and he admitted that he had seen the accused Pawan and Deepak for the first time in the office of CIA staff. He admitted that he had not obtained signature of complainant Bhupender on any of the documents of arrest of accused Deepak State Vs. Deepak & Ors No. 41/68 SC No. 814/2018 and Pawan and further stated that no videography and photography of kidnapped boy was done. He stated that at the time of recovery of car, Bhupender or CIA staff was not made a witness. He stated that no memo of recovery of child was prepared.
26. PW-21 ASI Anil Kumar, deposed that on 21.01.2015, personal search article of accused persons and accused bearing no. DL3CL5065 was deposited by SI Data Ram in the malkhana with him and entry no. 1491 and 1492 in register no. 19 Ex.PW- 21/A was made by him. He further stated that on 22.01.2015, three mobile phones were deposited by SI Data Ram in the malkhana with him and entry no. 1493 in Register No. 19 Ex.PW-21/B was made by him. He further stated that on 23.01.2015, one mobile phone and one CD were deposited by SI Data Ram in the malkhana with him and entry no. 1495 in Register No. 19 Ex.PW-21/C was made by him. He further stated that on 25.03.2015, HC Suresh deposited one cassette in the malkhana with him and entry no. 1584 in Register No. 19 Ex.PW-21/D was made by him. He further stated that on 16.04.2015, three sealed pullandas containing audio cassette, mobile phone and CD were sent to FSL Rohini through Constable Rambir vide RC No. 41/21/15 Ex.PW-21/E on instructions of IO and after returning from FSL, he handed over the receipt of FSL, Ex.PW-21/F and till then the case property remained in his custody the same were not tampered with.
State Vs. Deepak & Ors No. 42/68 SC No. 814/2018 26.1 During his cross-examination by Counsel for accused Deepak, he admitted that Ex.PW-21/A, the time of deposit of case property was not mentioned and further admitted the case property in Ex.PW-21/A must have been deposited prior to 12.00 AM of 21.05.2024.
26.2 During his cross-examination by Ld. LAC for accused Pawan and Jagdeep, he stated that the entry in Register No. 19 pertaining to the present case does not bear the signature of any senior police official and nor the same has been countersigned by any senior police officials.
27. PW-22 ASI Hansraj, deposed that on 21.01.2015, he was posted at CIA-II, Dharuhera, Rewari and on that day SI Data Ram of Delhi Police along with his team came to the office of CIA staff and he did not remember whether any public person were along with them. He further stated that SI Data Ram informed him and SI Shiv Kumar, about the ransom call of Rs. 25 lakhs and thereafter, he and SI Shiv Kumar accompanied the police team of SI Data Ram to railway station Rewari and they reached at about 05.30 PM, where near container depot accused persons Pawan and Deepak were found and they were apprehended. He identified accused persons Pawan and Deepak and stated that the two mobile phone were recovered from Pawan and Deepak and were seized by SI Data Ram vide Ex.PW-6/D. He stated that both the accused persons were brought to the CIA office, where they were interrogated by SI Data Ram, wherein State Vs. Deepak & Ors No. 43/68 SC No. 814/2018 they disclosed that the kidnapped child was with their friend Accused Jagdeep at Vinovabhave Enclave in Jharoda Kalan near CRPF Camp. He further deposed that one maruti car no. DL3CL5065 in which child Nikhil @ Goldy was kidnapped was recovered from outside the room and added that his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C was not correct that because it was not mentioned that accused persons Pawan and Deepak were apprehended near the Container Depot, Railway Station, Rewari, Haryana and instead it had only been mentioned that he had only joined the investigation after the arrest of accused persons and his other statement was in the police file.
27.1 During his cross-examination by Ld. LAC for accused Pawan and Jagdeep, he stated that IO SI Dataram made a call to his office about his visiting and he did not know SI Data Ram prior to 21.01.2015. He stated that the Uncle of the kidnapped boy was working with Haryana police and was posted at Faridabad and was known to him, so his number was given to SI Dataram. He stated that SI Dataram visited his office on 21.01.2015 at about 05.30 PM by his private vehicle, but he could not tell the details of the same and he could not tell anything about the DD numbers because the record was maintained by Mohrar/Munshi at that time. He stated that there were 4-5 persons with SI Dataram and he could not tell whether any public persons along with them since they all were in plain clothes. He stated that SI Dataram did not disclose the identity of the other police officials and SI Data Ram had informed him State Vs. Deepak & Ors No. 44/68 SC No. 814/2018 about the ransom call, demanded Rs. 25 lakhs at Rewari Railway Station. He stated that in his presence, SI Dataram had not visited the PCO from where the alleged demand of Rs. 25 lakhs was made and he could not say whether they were having amount or not. He stated that they had gone near the container depot from where a railway line which goes to Delhi to Jaipur and after crossing the railway line, there was PS Sadar. He stated that they saw the accused person for the first time, when they were searching in the bushes near railway line and the point was about 2 ½ kilometer from the railway station and when the enquired the accused persons threw their purse and phone and they became suspicious. He further stated that the accused persons were intoxicated and he had signed on the spot, arrest memo, personal search memo and recovery memo of mobile phone. He stated that no intimation was given to PS Sadar Rewari either prior to arrest of accused persons or thereafter.
27.2 During his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused Pawan and Jagdeep, he stated that he did not remember, how many police officials present at the spot, where accused persons were arrested allegedly. He stated that he did not remember, whether any identification mark was put on the alleged mobile phones recovered from the accused persons. He further stated that no efforts were made by the IO in his presence to lift the fingerprints from the alleged mobile phone and no person from container depot was called by IO to join investigation. He further stated that they left Rewari at about 10-10.30 PM and accused State Vs. Deepak & Ors No. 45/68 SC No. 814/2018 persons were in the vehicle of SI Data Ram and he could not say which vehicle was used by IO. He further stated that they reached directly to Jharoda Kalan near CRPF camp but he could not remember the exact address from where child was recovered. He stated that he could not tell whether the father of the child was present with the team at the time of recovery and there was a room which was opening in the street from where the child was recovered. He stated that one mobile phone was recovered from accused Jagdeep and he could not tell anything about the door of the room and size of the room. He stated that he could not tell the size of the house, from where the alleged recovery of the child was effected and stated that it was an residential area. He further stated that he had signed the seizure memo, personal search memo and recovery memo of mobile phone only at the room where the alleged recovery of child was effected. He stated that he could not say what kind of clothes were worn by the child and the child was any kind of beating or injury on his body. He stated that the recovered maruti car was stationed at 2-3 meter from the room where the child was recovered. He stated that the car of 800 CC and from the alleged room they had gone to PS Chawla along with the police officials and the child was with them at that time.
27.3 He stated that during his cross-examination by Counsel for accused Deepak that he did not know complainant Bhupender prior to 21.01.2015 and admitted that the complainant Bhupender was not present at Rewari Railway Station. He further admitted that complainant Bhupender was also not present at the house of State Vs. Deepak & Ors No. 46/68 SC No. 814/2018 Jagdeep at CRPF Camp at the time of recovery of child. He further stated that they all left PS Dharuhera after 11.30 PM on 21.01.2015 .i.e. after recording of DD NO. 11 A. He further admitted that prior to DD No.11A on 21.01.2015 at 11.30 PM, the maruti car was not recovered in the present case and he could not comment as to how the maruti car was shown deposited in the malkhana of PS Chawla on 21.01.2015. He further admitted that the disclosure statement of accused Pawan and Deepak were not recorded in his presence prior to 11.30 PM on 21.01.2015 when DD No. 11 A was made. He added that he could comment on the disclosure statement. No mobile phone was recovered from accused Deepak till he was the part of investigation. He stated that he had signed the arrest memo of accused Pawan and Deepak at about 07.30 PM at 21.01.2015 and he did not know the time of arrest of accused persons Pawan and Deepak having the timings of arrest as 11.50 PM on 21.01.2015. He denied the suggestion that accused Deepak had come to CIA Dharuhera on 21.01.2015 on scooty to report a jhagra in a drunken state, when he was detained by CIA Staff at Dharuhera, where he was falsely implicated in the present case.
28. On completion of prosecution evidence, the statement of accused persons were recorded 07.03.2024, where they denied having any knowledge of the incriminating evidence against them, which had been led during trial.
State Vs. Deepak & Ors No. 47/68 SC No. 814/2018 28.1 Accused Pawan stated that he had not kidnapped master Nikhil and stated that he was having his mobile phone with him when he was called to the PS and same was taken by the IO. He stated that his voice sample was taken by the IO by threatening him to implicate him in the present case. He stated that he has been falsely implicated and during his detention in Tihar Jail, complainant Bhupender was working as Warden and he had differences with him as they had demanded money. He had been falsely implicated in the present case to take out the grudge against him.
28.2 Accused Deepak also stated in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C that he had been falsely implicated and he did not know other accused persons namely Jagdeep and Pawan and that he had visited CIA Dharuhera office on 21.01.2015 in a scooty to report a quarrel in a drunken state, where he detained by CIA staff along with accused Pawan, who was already in the custody of CIA staff.
28.3 Accused Jagdeep also stated in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C that he refused TIP as he was shown by police officials to the witness. He stated that he was doing job of selling fast food at the rented shop near CRPF camp and since, he refused police officials food free of cost, he was falsely implicated in the present case.
State Vs. Deepak & Ors No. 48/68 SC No. 814/2018
29. After the recording of statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C accused persons did not wish to lead defence evidence and thereafter, final arguments were heard on behalf of all the parties.
30. Ld. Additional PP for the state argued that the prosecution had been able to establish and prove its case. It is submitted that there was sufficient evidence on record to show that the accused persons pursuant to their common intention had kidnapped master Nikhil @ Goldy and had demanded ransom of Rs. 25 lakhs from his father for his release. It was prayed that the accused persons be convicted in the present case.
31. It has been argued on behalf of Counsel for accused that there was no incriminating evidence produced on behalf of the prosecution as to convict accused Deepak in the present case. It is submitted that apart from the disclosure statement of accused Deepak, which is inadmissible in evidence, no recovery has been made pursuant to the same qua accused Deepak. It is further argued that accused Deepak had not kidnapped the child even as per the case of prosecution and there was no TIP conducted of accused Deepak in the present case. It is submitted that no CDR of accused Deepak has been placed on record and there is no incriminating evidence against him and it is submitted that the accused Deepak be acquitted in the present case.
32. It has been argued on behalf of LAC for accused persons Pawan and Jagdeep that the prosecution has not been able to State Vs. Deepak & Ors No. 49/68 SC No. 814/2018 prove its case qua the accused persons. It has been argued that there is no CDR on record of the mobile phone of the accused persons and there are several material contradictions in the present case of the prosecution witnesses. It is submitted that neither the alleged PCO owner from where the ransom calls were allegedly made have been examined and there are contradictions in the deposition of the police officials regarding the manner, time and place of arrest of the accused persons. It is submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons and they be acquitted.
33. Rival contentions heard on behalf of all the parties. Record perused. Considered.
34. The law was set into motion in the present case, on 18.01.2015 on receipt of DD No. 21A that victim Nikhil @ Goldy had been kidnapped by two persons. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused persons demanded ransom of Rs. 25 lakhs from the father of child Bhupender. Two accused persons Deepak and Pawan were arrested at Dharuhera on 21.01.2015 and on their instance, the child was recovered from third accused Jagdeep from Vinova Bhave Enclave, CRPF Camp, Najafgarh on 22.01.2015.
35. The accused persons have been charged for the offence under Section 364A/34 IPC.
State Vs. Deepak & Ors No. 50/68 SC No. 814/2018
36. In this context, it is significant to reiterate the relevant provision of Section 364 A IPC for the sake of ready reference.
364.Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder.-- Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person in order that such person may be murdered or may be so disposed of as to be put in danger of being murdered, shall be punished with imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.Illustrations(a)A kidnaps Z from India, intending or knowing it to be likely that Z may be sacrificed to an idol. A has committed the offence defined in this section.(b)A forcibly carries or entices B away from his home in order that B may be murdered. A has committed the offence defined in this section.
37. Careful and meaningful reading of the record reflects that the victim Nikhil was examined as PW-1. During his deposition, he reiterated the alleged incident and stated that on 18.05.2015, during morning hours, he along with his cousin brother Vansh and Sister were playing at the park in front of their house, when two persons came to them in a car and started playing for two days. He stated that they first asked for water and accordingly, he brought the water and they all drank water and later both persons asked him to take juice and carried him away in his car. The victim first pointed to accused persons Deepak and Jagdeep as the two persons who had taken him away in their car and he was detained in a rented room for five days. Thereafter, a leading question was put to the witness wherein he admitted that he was taken away by accused persons Pawan and Jagdeep present in the court and not by other accused Deepak.
State Vs. Deepak & Ors No. 51/68 SC No. 814/2018
38. It has contended on behalf of counsel for accused persons that the said witness admitted during his cross-examination that he was tutored by his father as to what to depose in the court but further added that he had stated whatever had happened with him.
39. PW-9 Vansh, who was present along with the child victim at the time of incident also testified on similar lines as PW-1. He however, stated that he could not identify the accused persons due to lapse of time. The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, wherein he identified accused Pawan as being one of the two witnesses who had taken Nikhil with them in the car and stated that he was not sure whether the second person was Jagdeep as he had reduced weight and stated that there was possibility that he may be one of them.
40. In the considered opinion of this Court, as per the evidence lead on record during trial, it is seen that the factum of kidnapping of the child Nikhil @ Goldy in the present case is not disputed. Though, the LAC for the accused persons Pawan and Jagdeep has argued that the prosecution did not examine the sister and other children, who were playing with them to prove its case, it requires mentioning that during the deposition of PW- 1 the victim and PW-9 his friend both of who were present at the time of the alleged offence nothing has been put forth on behalf of the accused persons to even suggest that the alleged incident State Vs. Deepak & Ors No. 52/68 SC No. 814/2018 did not happen. Further, the accused persons Pawan and Jagdeep have been duly identified by the victim Nikhil @ Goldy and the witness Vansh also identified Pawan, though, he was not certain whether the second accused was Jagdeep.
41. The prosecution also examined PW-3 Gopal Das, who stated that on 18.01.2015 at between 02.00-02.30 PM, two accused persons of whom one of them was Accused Pawan took Nikhil in a Maruti 800 and he identified the said Maruti car on 23.01.2015 when he was gone to PS Chhawla for his personal work and had seen that the said Maruti car parked in front of the said police station. During his cross-examination by counsel for accused Pawan, he had stated that he had come to know at about 05.00 PM that the child was kidnapped. He also stated that he had also gone to the PS on the date of incident but not told police anything on that day. The Defence has urged during final arguments that the deposition of this witness cannot be relied upon since he was not an eye witness, it is seen that PW-3 has stated during cross-examination that he was informed about the kidnapping on telephone. Thus, in view of his entire deposition, it is seen that PW-3 Gopal Das was not present at the time of the commission of the alleged offence.
42. It is pertinent to mention that in the present case, PW-1 and PW-9 are the natural eye witnesses, who are accorded a special states in the law. In case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 324, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as State Vs. Deepak & Ors No. 53/68 SC No. 814/2018 follows:-
The evidence of an injured witness must be given due weightage being a stamped witness, thus, his presence cannot be doubted. His statement is generally considered to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he has spared the actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone else. The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence and this lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. Thus, the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. The witness would not like or want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to implicate a third person falsely for the commission of the offence. Thus, the evidence of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are grounds for the rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein.
43. In the case of Abdul Saved v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 10 SCC 259, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed thus:-
The question of the weight to be attached to the evidence of a witness that was himself injured in the course of the occurrence has been extensively discussed by this Court. Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone. "Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness"
44. In the case of Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Mahrashtra 2023 SCC Online SC 355 this Court summed up the principles which are to be kept in mind when appreciating the evidence of an injured eye-witness. This court held as follows:
State Vs. Deepak & Ors No. 54/68 SC No. 814/2018
26. When the evidence of an injured eye-witness is to be appreciated, the under- noted legal principles enunciated by the Courts are required to be kept in mind:
(a) The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition.
(b) Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused.
(c) The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly.
(d) The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions.
(e) If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence.
(f) The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded.
45. Both the witnesses have deposed regarding the kidnapping of the child Nikhil @ Goldy on 18.1.2015 in a white car by accused persons Pawan and Jagdeep. No question have been put forth to them on behalf of the accused persons to even prima facie suggest that the child victim was not kidnapped as alleged by the prosecution. The child victim Nikhil @ Goldy has duly identified the accused persons during trial. Thus, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimonies of the victim child and his Cousin Vansh (PW-9) who were playing together on the date of incident, when the alleged incident took place. Therefore, the factum of the kidnapping of the child victim Nikhil @ Goldy by accused persons Pawan and Jagdeep has been duly proved and State Vs. Deepak & Ors No. 55/68 SC No. 814/2018 established on behalf of the Prosecution.
46. With respect to the offence punishable under Section 364 A i.e. kidnapping for ransom, the Hon'ble Apex Court, the case of Shaik Ahmed vs. State of Telangana (2021) 9 SCC has held that:-
A) There should be a kidnapping or abduction of a person or a person is to be kept in detention after such kidnapping or abduction:
B) There is a threat to cause death or hut to such a person or the accused by their conduct give rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt C) Or cause death or hurt to such a person in order to compel the Government or any foreign state or intergovernmental organization or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom.
The necessary ingredients which the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, before the Court are not only an act of kidnapping or abduction but thereafter the demand of ransom, coupled with the threat of life of a person who has been kidnapped or abducted, must be there. The same has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravi Dhingra v. State of Haryana (2023) 6 SCC 76.
47. Thus in the present case, the prosecution had to establish the demand of ransom and threat qua the kidnapped child Nikhil.
48. PW-4 Bhupender, who is the father of the child victim, stated during his deposition that on the third day of missing of Nikhil, a call from the accused persons was received on his State Vs. Deepak & Ors No. 56/68 SC No. 814/2018 mobile phone number XXXXXXX3061 at about 04.00 PM a ransom call of Rs. 25 lakhs was raised by the kidnappers and he was also asked to board any train going towards Ahmedabad via Rewari and he also informed this fact to the police. He further stated during his deposition on 13.02.2017, that he on receiving the ransom call along with the raiding party consisting of 5-7 police officials reached at PCO booth near Rewari Railway Station where accused persons did not meet them despite waiting for them till about 11.00 AM on the next day. He also stated that when they were coming back to Delhi and had reached Jhajar, a call was again received on his mobile phone from persons, who demanded money and asked him to board into Ahmedabad express which would come at 04.00 PM at Gurugram Railway station. He deposed that calls were regularly been received by the accused persons during the journey and when they reached at Rewari Railway station at about 05.00-05.30 PM, he again received a call from the accused persons and he was asked to reach near the railway counter and at the time of transacting the ransom amount, accused persons Pawan and Deepak were apprehended there by the police.
48.1 During his cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, he admitted that on 20.01.2015, he received calls from STD number and one mobile phone number on his mobile phone for ransom of Rs. 25 lakhs. The witness also identified the voice of accused Pawan, when the CD Ex.P4 was played before the court and during the deposition of the said witness on State Vs. Deepak & Ors No. 57/68 SC No. 814/2018 04.07.2018, it is seen that there is a court observation that after hearing the conversation of CD Ex.P4, it was clear that there was a call of ransom as there was demand of money in lieu of release of child.
48.2 It is also pertinent to mention at this stage that during the cross-examination of the said witness by counsel for accused Deepak for 02.02.2019, he stated that he did not throw the bag containing money anywhere from the moving train and he had also not told the police officials that he had not thrown away the bag containing money from the moving train. During his cross- examination by Counsel for accused Pawan, he stated that the bag was containing Rs. 17 lakhs and the same was black in color and he did not know if the police had prepared any inventory of the said bag. He further stated that in the year 2015, his salary was about Rs. 38000/- per month and he had borrowed Rs. 17 lakhs from his relatives in one day. He further stated that he had not told in any of his statement that Rs. 17 lakhs were arranged by him through his relatives.
49. It is also requires mentioning that PW-7 ASI Kishan, who was the part of the raiding team and had gone to Rewari has further stated during his cross-examination that the complainant had not kept any currency notes at the time of leaving for recovery. The witness was recalled for cross-examination under Section 311 Cr.P.C on 22.02.2024, wherein he stated that first call was made by STD landline and he did not remember which State Vs. Deepak & Ors No. 58/68 SC No. 814/2018 call he had recorded in his mobile phone and that his mobile phone was on recording mode at all time.
50. In this context, the cross-examination of PW-22 IO/SI Data Ram reveals that he had directed the complainant PW-4 Bhupender to record the calls and no other calls were recorded on the mobile phone of the complainant after his direction except the ransom call. The IO further stated that 4-5 calls were received on the phone of the complainant and all the 5 ransom calls were recorded in the mobile of complainant. He stated that the first ransom call was received at the PCO at Rewari at the phone of the complainant and he had not attached the ownership of PCO Rewari. He further stated that others calls were also made from PCOs at Rewari and he had also not attached any proof of their ownership. He stated that the transcript of recording of only one call was in the court file and no certificate under Section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act was given by the complainant for recording of his phone and nor he had asked for the same. He also stated during his cross-examination conducted on 09.02.2024, that complainant intimated him about different calls at different times but he did not make any DD entry in the PS with respect to any such ransom calls received by the complainant but however, it was mentioned in Case diary dated 20.01.2015. He stated that the last ransom call was received at 21.01.2015 and as per CD No. 5 dated 21.01.2015, the same was made by mobile no.XXXXX3040 but the same was not mentioned in the case dairy and he further stated that the above State Vs. Deepak & Ors No. 59/68 SC No. 814/2018 mobile number was of accused Pawan and he did not collect the CDR of mobile of accused Pawan and he could not say in whose name the above mentioned mobile phone exists.
51. PW-14 V. Laxmi Narsimhan, proved the voice sample of CD Ex.3 with specimen voice Ex.1 and stated that they were of the same person Pawan. During his cross-examination he stated that on the basis of voice analysis the age of audio recording could not ascertained and he did not check other recordings for analysis, of voice sample. He also stated that he did not mention the time and date of recording in the mobile phone and stated that IO had not stated the mobile number from which the calls were made.
52. PW-17 ASI Suresh Kumar, deposed that on 25.03.2015 the voice sample of accused Pawan was taken by the official of FSL and after taking the voice sample the cassette of recording of voice sample was handed over to him. During his cross- examination by Ld. LAC for accused Pawan and Jagdeep, he admitted that during the recording of voice of accused Pawan, he was not present in the room and he cannot tell the name of the officer, who had recorded the voice of accused Pawan.
53. In the considered opinion of this court, the prosecution has not been able to conclusively establish that it was accused Pawan, who had made the demand of ransom to the father of the State Vs. Deepak & Ors No. 60/68 SC No. 814/2018 victim namely Bhupender as neither have the PCO owners from where the alleged ransom calls were made been examined as a witness to establish the identity of accused Pawan being the same person who had made the alleged ransom calls or the CDRs of the mobile phone of accused Pawan and Bhupender being placed on record to establish that such calls were made accused Pawan and were received by Bhupender. There is no evidence led on record regarding the mobile location of accused persons and nothing has been adduced during trial to establish who had made the ransom call and from which number. There is no evidence led on behalf of the Prosecution to establish the mobile locations of accused persons. It is also pertinent to mention that only one alleged ransom call was sent for analysis in FSL, whereas, the IO during his cross-examination stated that he had asked the complainant to make recordings of all calls. Furthermore, even the concerned police officials, who had taken accused Pawan to FSL for the purpose of recording of his voice sample has stated that he was not present inside the room when the voice of accused Pawan was allegedly recorded. Furthermore, though it has been alleged by the prosecution that the complainant Bhupender had taken a bag of Rs. 17 lakhs for the purpose of handing over the same to the accused persons towards the release of child victim, however, no such bag has been seized or finds mention in the entire chargesheet. It also requires mentioning that no denomination of currency notes or any other evidence which could prima facie prove that the father of the victim had arranged the alleged ransom amount pursuant to the call for State Vs. Deepak & Ors No. 61/68 SC No. 814/2018 recovery of child has been brought forth by the prosecution. No evidence has been led on behalf of the prosecution to even suggest that along with the said ransom call, there was any threat extended to the father of the Complainant. Even the bare reading of the transcript of the alleged ransom call, Ex.PW-20/7 does not mention about any threat.
54. Therefore, the allegations of ransom or threat by the accused persons has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt in the present case qua the accused persons.
55. The Counsel for the accused persons have also contended that there are material contradictions regarding arrest of the accused persons. It has been argued that there is discrepancy as to the date and time and place of arrest of accused persons Pawan and Deepak.
56. It is the case of the prosecution that accused persons were arrested near the Railway Container near Rewari Railway Station on behalf of the IO and police raiding team with the police officials of CIA Dharuhera, however, perusal of the testimony of PW-6 HC Vikas Kumar reflects that the accused persons Pawan and Deepak were apprehended at Dharuhera with the aid of Secret Informer. PW-6 further stated during his testimony that they reached Delhi at midnight and they were interrogated at PS. It is further the case of the prosecution that pursuant to the disclosure statement of accused Pawan and Deepak, the child State Vs. Deepak & Ors No. 62/68 SC No. 814/2018 was recovered from Vinovabhave Enclave, CRPF camp Najafgarh, where he was kept by accused Jagdeep. The said witness PW-6 during his cross-examination stated that on 20.01.2015, they reached Dharuhera in the evening and admitted that he did not remember the exact spot from where they apprehended accused Pawan. He further stated that they reached PS Chawla on 22.01.2015 at 01.30 AM, and after reaching the PS they left after 15 minutes for Najafgarh with accused Pawan and Deepak.
57. PW-7 Kishan stated during his deposition that on 20.01.2015, that they all went to Rewari on train and he along with the father of the victim got down at the station next to Rewari, where the father of the child victim made call to the IO and the IO asked them to reach Dharuhera and when they reached Dharuhera, the IO had already apprehended two persons accused Pawan and Deepak.
57.1 During his cross-examination by counsel for accused persons Pawan and Deepak, he admitted that accused Pawan and Deepak were apprehended by CIA Staff Dharuhera and during his cross-examination by counsel for accused Pawan, he admitted that no train goes to Dharuhera and Dharuhera does not fall between Delhi and Rewari railway route. He stated that the complainant was present at Rewari with them and had not gone to any other place.
State Vs. Deepak & Ors No. 63/68 SC No. 814/2018
58. PW-12 ASI Shiv Kumar, who was posted at CIA-II Dharuhera on 21.01.2015, deposed that accused Pawan and Deepak were already in custody of CIA Staff when they were interrogated by SI Data Ram.
58.1 During his cross-examination by Counsel for accused persons Pawan and Deepak he stated that his statement was partly recorded at CIA Dharuhera and partly after recovery of child.
59. PW-20 IO SI Data Ram stated during his deposition that on 21.01.2015, he along with Constable Krishan, Pritam, Vikas, Complainant and secret informer and 1-2 relatives of complainant, reached Rewari, Haryana, where he contacted the CIA staff of Dharuhera. He stated that except the secret informer, he along with CIA staff reached Rewari Railway Station, where accused Pawan and Deepak were apprehended and arrested by him.
59.1 During his cross-examination by counsel for accused Deepak, that on 20.01.2015 they left PS Chawla for Rewari at 10.00 PM and reached Rewari at 12.00 midnight of 21.01.2015. He further admitted that the arrest memo of accused Deepak was prepared at 11.50 on 21.01.2015 at CIA Dharuhera and further admitted that the disclosure statement of accused Deepak would have been recorded after 11.50 PM on 21.01.2015 and they left at about 12.15 AM on 22.01.2015. He also stated during his cross-
State Vs. Deepak & Ors No. 64/68 SC No. 814/2018 examination by Ld. LAC of accused Pawan and Jagdeep, that he had arrested the accused persons with the help of CIA Dharuhera Staff and the staff of Dharuhera CIA met them at Platform no. 2 at Rewari Railway Station. He stated that accused was apprehended by staff of CIA Dharuhera from Anaaz Mandi Rewari and had taken to office of CIA Dharuhera and he had got information about apprehension of accused persons from CIA Staff Dharuhera.
60. It is pertinent to mention that arrest memo of accused Pawan and Deepak Ex.PW-6/A and Ex.PW-6/B respectively reflect the time of arrest on 21.01.2015 at 11.50 PM. Therefore, there are several material contradictions, in the deposition of the police officials as reiterated aforesaid regarding the place and the timings of the arrest of accused Pawan and Deepak. Even the manner in which the raiding team reached Daruhera and Rewari has not been duly corroborated as while at one one instance, it is stated that they had gone to Rewari in train and on the other hand, the other members of the raiding team have deposed that they went by car. The complainant has also stated that his relative had accompanied him to Rewari but neither the name of his relative has been mentioned nor has been examined as a witnesses.
61. As per the chargesheet, the child was recovered from Vinovabhave Enclave from accused Jagdeep. It is an admitted fact that no recovery memo of the child is on record. It is also State Vs. Deepak & Ors No. 65/68 SC No. 814/2018 alleged by the prosecution that the alleged vehicle in which the accused persons Pawan and Jagdeep had kidnapped the child was recovered outside the room at Vinovabhave Enclave, from where the child was recovered. At this stage, it requires mentioning that owner of the said room namely Praveen Dass had turned hostile during trial and has not supported the case of the prosecution. He had denied the suggestions that child was recovered from the possession of accused Jagdeep from his home and that accused Jagdeep was residing in his premises as tenant. The owner of the vehicle Rakesh Kumar, who was examined as PW-16 by the prosecution has also deposed that he could not recollect the name and address of the buyer of his Maruti car and further deposed that he had not got the same transferred to anyone. During trial it is also seen from the record that at one instance it has been alleged on behalf of prosecution witnesses namely Bhupender that the said car in which the child was kidnapped was Alto, however, the recovered car was Maruti -800. Therefore, in view of the depositions of the owner of the flat and the owner of the car and other evidence led on record, in the considered opinion of this Court, the prosecution could not conclusively establish that the child was recovered from Vinobhave Enclave. In the present case, the prosecution has also relied upon the handing over memo of the child to his father Bhupender Ex.PW-4/B, however, the same cannot be in any manner be considered as a recovery memo to establish that the child was recovered at Vinova Bhave Enclave. Furthermore, the IO during his deposition as PW-20 has also not deposed anything regarding the recovery memo.
State Vs. Deepak & Ors No. 66/68 SC No. 814/2018 Therefore, the factum of recovery of child from the possession of accused Jagdeep has not been duly proved beyond reasonable doubt in the present case.
62. It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of William Stephen Vs. State of Tamilnadu in Crl. Appeal No. 607/24 dated 21.02.2024 that Section 364A of the IPC necessitates both kidnapping and a threat to cause death and harm for conviction. In the present case, the prosecution, has not able to establish, even the ransom calls or the death threats if any, extended to the victim by the accused persons Pawan and Jagdeep at the time of kidnapping and in the present case, even the ransom calls have not been conclusive proved by the prosecution.
63. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this court, the prosecution has failed to prove the charges under Section 364A/34 IPC qua the accused persons.
64. However, the deposition of the child victim Nikhil @ Goldy has proved during trial that he was kidnapped by accused persons Pawan and Jagdeep in the present case pursuant to their common intention. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this court, the prosecution has been able to prove the offence under Section 363/34 IPC against the accused Pawan and Jagdeep.
65. With respect to accused Deepak, it has been proved during State Vs. Deepak & Ors No. 67/68 SC No. 814/2018 trial that he did not kidnap the child on 18.01.2015 and neither the kidnapped child i.e. Nikhil @ Goldy was recovered from his custody. The prosecution has been unable to establish his role either in the kidnapping of the child, or in the alleged ransom calls and neither has it been attributed to him that he had kept the child hostage. Therefore, in the absence of any incriminating evidence on record qua him accused Deepak is acquitted from all the charges.
Final Order
66. In view of the aforesaid facts and discussions, accused persons Pawan and Jagdeep are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 363/34 IPC. Accused Deepak is acquitted of all charges.
67. Ordered accordingly.
Digitally signedANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN by GURMOHINA GURMOHINA KAUR COURT ON 08.05.2024 KAUR Date: (Gurmohina Kaur) 2024.05.09 10:23:16 +0530 ASJ-05 (South- West), Dwarka Courts, Delhi State Vs. Deepak & Ors No. 68/68 SC No. 814/2018