Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12.This witness has further deposed that on 06.09.2003, at about 07:00p.m. copy of DD No.21­A Ex.PW6/B was assigned to him and it came into his notice from the same that Ct. Naresh from Missing Person Squad had informed to Police Station M.S. Park that a boy of similar descriptions of Kalu may be traced from Gannaur Chowk, District Sonepat, Haryana. Thereafter, he had informed to senior police officials in connection of facts of aforesaid DD and with the permission of senior police officials he along with HC Inderjeet and complainant reached at Gannaur Chowk, Main G.T. Road, Gannaur, District Sonepat, Haryana and there they found Asish @ Kalu and complainant had identified his son victim. This witness has further deposed that he took custody of Asish @ Kalu vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/A. Thereafter, further investigation of this case was assigned to State Vs. Manoj Kumar and others Sub­Inspector Kansh Raj by the oral order of SHO/Inspector Jag Ram Singh and he handed over the case file to Sub­Inspector Kansh Raj.

26.PW5 SI Inderjeet Singh is witness of recovery of victim from Gannaur Chowk, Sonepat from fruit seller.

27.PW6 HC Amar Singh and PW7 Inspector Kans Raj are witnesses of arrest of accused Naresh @ Sonu, Rajiv and Manoj and custody of victim from Gannaur, Sonepat, Haryana in presence of complainant.

28.Ld. APP for the State has further argued that there are sufficient material on record to convict the accused persons under the section for which they have been charged.

49.On analysis the material available on record, this court find that prosecution has been able to establish his case to the effect that all the accused persons kidnapped Asish from Delhi and left him in Gannaur, Sonepat. It is also stands established that victim was recovered from Gannaur, Sonepat. Recovery memo was prepared by the IO to this effect. On the statement of victim accused persons namely Manoj, Rajiv and Naresh @ Sonu were arrested.

51.For the purpose of section 363 IPC in respect to the facts of the present case it is sufficient that accused persons namely Manoj, Rajiv and Naresh @ Sonu conspired to kidnap Asish in execution of their criminal conspiracy and left victim at Gannaur, Sonepat, Haryana. Requirement of section 363 IPC is met out, since victim was taken away from the lawful guardianship of his parents without their consent. It does not make any difference if the victim could not disclose the name of accused person at the time of his recovery from Gannaur, Sonepat. However, he has identified all the accused persons by their names in the court. Identity of accused persons by the victim is sufficient for the purpose of section 363 IPC.