Lalit Kumar vs State
2010 Latest Caselaw 816 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                             Date of Decision :11th February, 2010

+                        Crl. A. No. 674/2005

        LALIT KUMAR                    ..... Appellant
                          Through:     Ms.Charu Verma, Advocate

                     versus

        STATE                                   ..... Respondent
                          Through:     Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP

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

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

1. The appeal has been called out for hearing.

Ms.Charu Verma, Advocate on the panel of Delhi High Court

Legal Services Committee has stood up to argue the appeal

informing us that the appellant had desired a legal aid counsel

to represent him and had named Sh.A.S.Rajput, Advocate as

the one who should be representing him, probably for the

reason the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee has

nominated Mr.A.S.Rajput, Advocate, but the said Committee

has entrusted the brief to her.

2. We proceeded to hear arguments in the appeal and

do formally appoint Ms.Charu Verma as the Amicus Curiae on

behalf of the appellant and fix her fee in sum of Rs.5500/- to

be paid by the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.

3. Vide impugned judgment and order dated

13.05.2005 the appellant has been convicted for the offence

punishable under Section 364-A/34 IPC.

4. Co-accused Ajay Prashad was declared a

Proclaimed Offender. He continues to evade the process of

law till date.

5. In returning a finding of guilt the learned trial Judge

has relied upon the testimony of Dhananjay Kumar PW-2 who

deposed two facts. Firstly, the appellant and co-accused Ajay

Prashad visiting him at his house in Bihar on 27.07.2003 and

informed him that his nephew Ravi Ranjan was in their custody

and that he would be released only if ransom in sum of Rs.1.5

lacs is paid failing which the child would be killed. He was

threatened that if he informs the police even he would be

finished. He was directed to ensure that the ransom amount

was paid.

6. The Second fact deposed to by Dhananjay Kumar

PW-2, which fact has been corroborated by Pramod Kumar PW-

5, the father of Ravi Ranjan as also Ct.Inderpal PW-5, ASI Babu

Ram and Ravi Ranjan PW-4 that as per the demand of the

appellant and the co-accused when ransom amount was being

paid at the spot directed to be the one where the ransom

amount would be paid, appellant was apprehended at the spot

when he came to collect the ransom and Ravi Ranjan was

recovered from his custody. Co-accused Ajay, who probably

sensed that something was amiss, having walked towards the

spot with the appellant, retraced his steps and hid behind the

bushes and on seeing the raiding party left the appellant and

fled from the spot.

7. The learned trial Judge has also found incriminating

evidence against the appellant with reference to the testimony

of Ravi Ranjan PW-4, the child who was kidnapped.

8. Process of law commenced when Pramod Kumar

PW-5, father of Ravi Ranjan went to the police station on

19.07.2003 and made statement Ex.PW-5/A before the Duty

Officer informing that on 15.07.2003 Ajay Prashad who was his

ex-employee had stayed in his residence and that since

16.07.2003 his son Ravi Ranjan was missing.

9. ASI Babu Ram PW-8 to whom the matter was

assigned on inquiry made the endorsement Ex.PW-8/A beneath

the afore-noted statement and got registered a case for the

offence punishable under Section 363 IPC. On 27.07.2003

Dhananjay Kumar PW-2 rang up Pramod Kumar and informed

him that two persons have visited him and informed him that

Ravi Ranjan was in their custody and unless Rs.1.5 lacs was

paid to secure his release the child would be killed. Pramod

Kumar informed the said fact to ASI Babu Ram who

immediately formed the raiding party consisting of beside

himself Ct.Inderpal and left for Patna inasmuch as Dhananjay

Kumar has informed Pramod Kumar that the kidnappers had

told him to pay the ransom at village Sisor, District Nalanda,

Bihar at around 12:00 noon on 29.07.2003.

10. Preparatory steps were taken by making bundles

having a genuine note each at the top and the bottom of each

bundle in denomination of each Rs.50/-. The police party

accompanied by Pramod Kumar left Delhi by Magadh Express

and reached Patna on 28.07.2003 and the next day the police

personnel along with Dhananjay Kumar hide themselves.

Pramod Kumar proceeded to the spot where the ransom had to

be paid.

11. The appellant and the co-accused Ajay were seen

coming towards the spot with the child. Sensing that

something was amiss Ajay laggard behind and hid himself

behind the bushes. The moment the police overpowered the

appellant and recovered the child, Ajay managed to flee from

the spot.

12. Having perused the testimony of Dhananjay Kumar

PW-2, it is apparent that he has established the facts as noted

above pertaining to what Dhananjay saw and heard. He has

deposed that he informed Pramod Kumar on 27.07.2003 that

the accused had contacted him requiring him to inform the

father of the kidnapped child that ransom should be paid in

sum of Rs.1.5 lacs on 29.07.2003. He conveyed the said fact

to Pramod Kumar. He has also deposed facts of appellant

being apprehended on 29.07.2003 when he came to receive

the ransom at village Sirsor.

13. Pramod Kumar PW-5, Ct.Inderpal PW-6, ASI Babu

Ram PW-8 as also Ravi Ranjan PW-4 have deposed facts in

harmony with the testimony of Dhananjay Kumar pertaining to

appellant's arrest on 29.07.2003.

14. No blemish worthy of being noticed has been

pointed out to us in the testimony as also the cross-

examination of the said witnesses.

15. That Dhananjay Kumar admitted not having

informed the local police that two persons had visited him on

27.07.2003 and told him to convey to Ravi Ranjan's father the

damand of ransom, would not mean that Dhananjay Kumar

has fabricated a lie. Being the uncle of Ravi Ranjan he thought

it fit only to inform Ravi's father and not the police is not

unnatural.

16. In matters of abduction where the threat by the

kidnappers is that if police is informed it would have serious

consequence on the kidnapped child does prevent the family

members of the kidnapped person not to report the matter to

the police. Cases are not unheard of where ransom amount

has been paid to secure the release of victim without

informing anything to the police. But this depends upon the

comfort level of family members of the kidnapped child.

Some want to play 100% safe and therefore do not inform the

police while some are brave enough and are ready and willing

to take risk. The latter inform the police.

17. That apart, Ravi Ranjan PW-4, aged 12 years when

he deposed and 11 years when he was kidnapped has proved

graphic account as to how Ajay Prashad who stayed in his

house and had worked with his father enticed him from his

house and how the appellant Lalit joined Ajay's company three

days after. He has deposed of Ajay threatening him with a gun

that unless his father paid him Rs.1.5 lacs, he would not be

released. He has deposed the facts in harmony with

Dhananjay, Pramod Kumar, Ct. Inderpal and ASI Babu Ram as

to what transpired in village Sisor when he was freed from the

clutches of his abductors.

18. We are satisfied that there is good and cogent

evidence wherefrom involvement of the appellant in the crime

stands established.

19. Pertaining to whether there was any threat to the

life or the body of the kidnapped child or whether there was

conduct which gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that

the victim would be killed or bodily injury caused, suffice would

it be to note that as deposed to by Dhananjay Kumar PW-2,

the appellant and Ajay had clearly told him in no certain words

that if the ransom was not paid, the child would be killed.

Thus, the fact that during the period of his illegal custody only

co-accused Ajay used to threaten Ravi Ranjan with a pistol and

the appellant extended no such threats to the victim is

irrelevant.

20. We find no merit in the appeal as also the sentence

imposed upon the appellant, which sentence is the minimum

sentence prescribed under law i.e. imprisonment for life for the

offence of kidnapping for ransom. We dismiss the appeal.

21. Since the appellant is still in jail, we direct that our

decision be sent to Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar to be

made available to the appellant.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J

SURESH KAIT, J FEBRUARY 11, 2010 'nks'