Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

18.

69. In cross-examination, she stated that since it was a case of kidnapping of a child, therefore, there was no need to obtain search warrant. She further reiterated that the accused Rajkishore was arrested from Ramanujganj by the police team, he was being taken on 10.05.2019 from Ramanujganj and at about 8:20 a.m. she recorded his memorandum statement. She also affirmed the various seizures made by her during the investigation from the accused persons and the seizure of electronic evidence in the pen-drive. She also reiterated that after obtaining permission from the Magistrate, she had taken the accused Rajkishore to Akashwani for his voice sample. She also denied that the seized articles were not duly sealed. The accused Harekrishna Rai was arrested on 26.04.2019. She admitted in her evidence that before identification of chappal of the child, the statement of complainant Vivek Saraf and Vibha Saraf have already been recorded. She denied the conducting of test identification parade of chappal. She also denied the suggestion that she has not sent the memos to the Cyber Cell for analysis of pen-drive and other electronic records. She also admitted that at the time of recording statement of Vivek Saraf, he has not raises any suspicion upon Nita Saraf and Anil Singh. She further stated that witness Suraj Kumar had given statement that two persons have confined a child, who have been arrested by the police. In her further cross-examination, she reaffirmed the investigation, which she conducted in the case. She also stated that there is evidence of their call details against the accused Nita Saraf and Anil Singh and they disclosed in their memorandum statement about their involvement. From the statement of Vibha Saraf and Satyanarayan Saraf, the involvement of appellant Nita Saraf appeared in the case. She further admitted that accused Satish Sharma is the employee of Rajkishore, who is working in his tiles factory. But for minor omissions or contradictions the evidence of this witness is corroborative with the other evidence available on record. The minor omission or contradiction are trivial in nature, which relates to procedural aspect of the investigation and does not affect the substantive part of investigation.

127. The scientific evidence adduced by the prosecution also substantially corroborates the ocular and electronic evidence. PW-27 Smt. Vidya Jauhar, Fingerprint Expert, conclusively proved that chance print (A) recovered from the Wagon-R vehicle matched with the left thumb impression of accused Anil Singh Rajput and another chance print matched with the fingerprint of victim Virat. The presence of the fingerprint of accused Anil Singh inside the vehicle used for kidnapping unmistakably establishes his direct involvement in commission of the offence. Simultaneously, the fingerprint of victim Virat inside the vehicle corroborates the prosecution case that the victim had travelled in the same vehicle after being kidnapped. Minor procedural irregularities pointed out in cross-examination are insufficient to discard otherwise reliable scientific evidence, particularly in absence of any suggestion of tampering or fabrication.

135. The evidence on record clearly establishes that accused Nita Saraf acted as an insider source having prior knowledge regarding the movements and activities of the victim's family and remained in regular telephonic contact with the other accused persons before and after the incident. Accused Anil Singh Rajput was directly connected with the Wagon-R car used in the kidnapping and his fingerprint was found inside the car. Accused Harekrishna Rai actively participated in kidnapping and confinement of the victim and remained present with the child at the time of recovery. Accused Rajkishore Singh provided the premises for illegal confinement of the child and remained actively involved in the execution of the conspiracy and ransom arrangement. Accused Satish Sharma remained in continuous communication with the other conspirators and facilitated execution of the offence. Thus, the role of each accused person stands clearly established through independent as well as corroborative evidence. The offence in the present case is grave and serious in nature involving kidnapping of a minor child for ransom pursuant to a pre-planned criminal conspiracy. Such offences not only affect the victim and his family but also create fear and insecurity in the society at large.

16.100. Section 364-A-Kidnapping or abduction for ransom- We consider it desirable to have a specific section to punish severely kidnapping or abduction for ransom, as such cases are increasing. At present, such kidnapping or abduction is punishable under section 365 since the kidnapped or abducted person will be secretly and wrongfully confined.

We also considered the question whether a provision for reduced punishment in case of release of the person kidnapped without harm should be inserted, but we have come to the conclusion that there is no need for it. We propose the following section:-