Delhi High Court
Shishir Kumar @ Chunnu vs State on 31 May, 2010
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision:31st May,2010
+ CRL.A. 566/2010
SHISHIR KUMAR @ CHUNNU ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Lal Singh Thakur,
Advocate with Mr.Nikhlesh
Kumar brother of Shishir
Kumar.
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?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
1. We have perused the impugned decision which is
most inchoate and verbose; not only the counsel for the
appellant but even the counsel for the State agree that they
cannot make any head or tail out of the impugned decision.
The contours of the conspiracy set forth have been penned by
the learned trial judge in para 2 of the decision which we find
is not only prolix but rolled all over. A sentence spanning
nearly two pages has been written. So complex is the wording
of para 2, that even the learned Trial Judge has not understood
what he was supposed to focus upon.
2. As we understand and as stated by the learned
counsel for the parties, the case of the prosecution was that
Kishan Kumar (P.O.) entered into a conspiracy with co-accused
Shambhu Nath and Shishir Kumar to extract money from Ram
Sanjeevan and in furtherance thereof Shishir Kumar lured
away Prateek S/o Ram Sanjeevan and made a ransom call.
Rs.30 Lacs were demanded. Ram Sanjeevan did not have the
money. Kishan Kumar told him that he could get financed a
sum of Rs. 5 lacs from Vijender Sharma PW-2 and could
arrange for another sum of Rs.13 lacs from Dinesh Kumar PW-
6 to whom Ram Sanjeevan would have to sell his house
bearing No.294, Pocket-I, Phase-II, Sector-13, Dwarka. As per
the conspiracy Kishan Kumar had already handed over two
bags to Dinesh and Vijender who did not know what the
contents of the bag were.
3. On 18.08.2004 i.e. the day when Prateek went
missing a ransom call was received. Kishan Kumar took Ram
Sanjeevan to Vijender who handed over the bag to Kishan
Kumar. Thereafter they went to Dinesh who handed over the
other bag to Kishan Kumar. It is the case of the prosecution
that Kishan Kumar made Ram Sanjeevan take the jewellery of
his wife, to be pawned to Vijender, when he would advance
loan in sum of Rs. 5 lacs to Ram Sanjeevan. It is the case of
the prosecution that on 18.08.2004, Ram Sanjeevan was taken
to the house of Vijender who handed over the bag which was
entrusted to him the day prior. Ram Sanjeevan thought that
he was being advanced loan of Rs.5 lacs by Vijender.
Thereafter at the house of Dinesh the bag which was
previously kept with Dinesh by Kishan Kumar was handed
over. Ram Sanjeevan thought he was being given money for
sale of his house. It is further the case of the prosecution that
these two bags along with some jewellery of the wife of Kishan
Kumar was then handed over to Shishir by Ram Sanjeevan and
his son Prateek was set free.
4. From a perusal of the testimony of Vijender and
Dinesh we find that neither has stated that they got executed
any document from Ram Sanjeevan. Both of them simply
state that a bag entrusted to them a day prior was simply
handed over by them on 18.08.2004. Dinesh does not say that
he received any title documents. The police has not recovered
any title document from Kishan Kumar or any other person.
5. Various issues arise for consideration. Learned
Trial Judge has not dealt with any.
6. It is urged by the learned counsel for the
appellant that not a single submission urged has not been
dealt with. Counsel urges that it was submitted before the
learned Trial Judge that why would Shishir Kumar carry with
him useless papers ostensibly handed over to him on
18.08.2004 till Shishir Kumar was arrested on 20.08.2004.
Counsel further highlights that as per the conspiracy, it was
known to the conspirators that the two bags had useless
papers in it. It be noted that Ram Sanjeevan was made to pay,
as per the prosecution, the ransom amount by pawning the
jewellery of his wife and handing over the title deed of his
property and in return was handed over bag containing useless
papers but he being made to believe that money was being
given. Obviously, Ram Sanjeevan being a blind man was
sought to be exploited.
7. If this be so, the conspirators knew that bag which
Ram Sanjeevan would be handing over was containing useless
papers.
8. It is unfortunate that the learned Trial Judge has
not bothered to consider the contours of the conspiracy as
projected and ostensibly proved.
9. Lest we express any opinion on the various issues
which arise, we refrain from noting the same, but to ensure
that the learned Trial Judge deals with the issue, we propose to
direct that written submissions would be filed so that the
learned Trial Judge deals with the contentions urged.
10. Indeed, grievance of learned counsel for the
appellant is that the learned Trial Judge has noted issues as
per his convenience and not the ones which were urged at the
hearing.
11. We dispose of the appeal setting aside the
impugned judgment and order dated 02.01.2010 as also the
order on sentence on 06.01.2010, but only limited to the
appellant.
12. We make it clear that admittedly, there is no
evidence against Shambhu Nath and thus qua him, order of
acquittal is maintained. It is clarified that impugned decision
dated 02.01.2010 is set aside vis-à-vis appellant Shishir
Kumar.
13. We remand the matter to the learned Trial Judge
granting liberty to the learned counsel for the appellant to file
written submissions and with directions to the learned Trial
Judge that at the remanded stage each and every contention
urged in the written submission would be dealt with.
14. The case is restored before the learned Trial
Judge, to be listed on 04.06.2010.
15. Learned counsel for the appellant and the brother
of the appellant have noted the said date. Learned counsel for
the State submits that he would inform his counterpart.
16. On 04.06.2010, the learned trial judge would fix a
date of hearing not beyond 09.07.2010 and on said date
written submissions would be filed. Arguments would be re-
heard and fresh decision be taken latest by 31.08.2010.
17. TCR be returned today itself.
18. Copy of this order be supplied dasti to the parties
under the signature of Court Master.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
(SURESH KAIT)
JUDGE
MAY 31, 2010
'mr'
