Preeti Verma vs The State Of Delhi
2010 Latest Caselaw 2320 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                               Date of Decision :30th April, 2010

+                         Crl. A. No. 1024/2008

        PREETI VERMA                            ..... Appellant
                           Through:   Ms. Charu Verma, Advocate

                      versus

        THE STATE OF DELHI                  ..... Respondent

                      Through:        Ms.Richa Kapoor, A.P.P.

         CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to Reporter or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral)

1. With reference to the testimony of Shama Parveen

PW-3, the mother of Bilal as also the testimony of Bilal PW-4,

learned counsel for the appellant concedes that there is hardly

any scope to argue that the prosecution has not proved that

the appellant was employed as a maid servant by Shama

Parveen and that the appellant went missing with the minor

son Bilal of Shama Parveen. Mohd.Farukh PW-5 is the witness

who saw the appellant walk away with Bilal in the afternoon of

27.3.2002, the day when Bilal was found missing from his

house and the appellant was also missing.

2. Not only that, the testimony of SI R.K.Borse PW-6

proves that Bilal was recovered from the possession of the

appellant from Mumbai.

3. The only issue which we need to discuss and decide

is whether an essential ingredient of Section 364-A IPC, as held

by a Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court in the decision

reported as 2008 (4) JCC 2961 Rafiq & Anr. vs. State has been

established.

4. In Rafiq's case (supra) it has been held that of the

many ingredients constituting the whole of Section 364-A IPC

is proof of the fact of a threat or a conduct giving rise to a

reasonable apprehension that the kidnapped child could be put

to death or hurt.

5. Though in the context of jurisdiction, similar view

finds expounded in the decision of the Supreme Court reported

as JT 2007 (5) SC 48 Vishwanath Gupta vs. State of

Uttaranchal.

6. Having perused the testimony of the mother and

the child kidnapped, we do not find any evidence of proof of

the fact that either by conduct or by express words a threat

was extended to cause harm to the child or to put the child to

death.

7. Under the circumstances, we hold that the

prosecution has been able to only prove the commission of

offences punishable under Section 363 IPC and 368 IPC. We

note that the co-accused of the appellant, the main architect,

Abdul Salam is a proclaimed offender.

8. Under the circumstances, the appeal stands

disposed of setting aside the conviction of the appellant for the

offence punishable under Section 364-A IPC.

9. We convict the appellant for the offences

punishable under Section 363 IPC as also Section 368 IPC. For

both offences, we sentence the appellant to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a period of 6 years each. We direct that both

sentences shall run concurrently and that the appellant shall

be entitled to the benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. Needless to

state, in computing the sentence to be actually undergone,

benefit of remissions, if any, earned by the appellant shall be

accorded.

10. Since the appellant is in jail we direct that a copy of

this decision be sent to the Superintendent, Central Jail Tihar

with a direction that if the appellant has completed the

sentence for a period of 6 years, she be set free forthwith.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J

SURESH KAIT, J APRIL 30, 2010 dk