Kallu vs State Of Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi
2013 Latest Caselaw 4616 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                   DECIDED ON : 4th October, 2013

+      CRL.A.309/2001
       KALLU
                                                          ..... Appellant
                          Through : Ms.Yashita Munjal, Advocate.

                          versus

       STATE OF GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
                                                       ..... Respondent
                          Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP for the State.
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.GARG, J. (ORAL)

1. Kallu (the appellant) challenges the correctness of a

judgment dated 18.04.2001 in Sessions Case No.59/2000 arising out of

FIR No.112/2000 registered at Police Station Gokalpuri by which he was

held guilty for committing offence under Section 363 IPC. By an order

dated 19.04.2001 he was sentenced to undergo RI for seven years with

fine `10,000/-.

2. Allegations against the appellant were that on 14.03.2000,

complainant-Ganga Vishal Yadav lodged report with the police that his

son Manoj aged 6 years was missing. On 15.03.2000 at about 05.00 P.M.

a telephone call was received on his phone No.2264953 at his house

which was attended by his wife Smt.Nirmla. The caller demanded ransom

amount of `1,00,000/- to release the child which was in his custody or else

threatened to kill him. He disclosed his name as Kallu. In subsequent

conversation on telephone with the caller, Ram Pratap-brother of Ganga

Vishal Yadav told him that the amount of `1,00,000/- would be given for

the release of the child and they asked the caller to have a talk with the

child. The voice of the child was identified. The complainant-Ganga

Vishal Yadav went to tempo stand with ransom amount of `1.00,000/-.

The matter was reported to the police. On 16.03.2000 the complainant

with the police team arrived at Fatehpur. A telephone call was made to

Kallu at about 06.45 P.M. The child was recovered from the bushes

situated near the Dalmow Road. Kallu was arrested and interrogated. He

led the police team to Bobby STD booth owned by Kailash Gupta from

where he had made telephone calls. Statement of witnesses conversant

with the facts were recorded. After completion of investigation, a charge-

sheet under Section 363/364A IPC was submitted against him in the court.

The prosecution examined 11 witnesses. In his 313 statement the

appellant pleaded false implication. He examined Ram Kishore (DW-1)

and Mohd.Rafiq (DW-2) in defence. On appreciating the evidence and

after considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court by the

impugned judgment convicted the appellant under Section 363 IPC and

sentenced him accordingly. He was acquitted of the charge under Section

364A IPC. The State did not challenge his acquittal under Section 364A

IPC.

3. During the course of arguments, appellant's counsel on

instructions, stated at Bar that the appellant has opted not to challenge the

finding of the Trial Court on conviction for the offence under Section 363

IPC and accepts it voluntarily. She, however, prayed to take lenient view

as the appellant has already remained in custody for substantial period in

this case and has clean antecedents. The learned Additional Public

Prosecutor has no objection to consider the mitigating circumstances to

modify the sentence order. Since the appellant has opted not to challenge

the conviction under Section 363 IPC and there is overwhelming evidence

in the testimony of PWs, the findings of the Trial Court on conviction

under Section 363 IPC are affirmed. The appellant was sentenced to

undergo RI for seven years with fine `10,000/-. Nominal roll dated

15.11.2010 reveals that he has remained in custody for three years, seven

months and two days as on 20.10.2003. He also earned remission for

eight months and 21 days as on 15.11.2010. He is a first offender and was

not involved in any criminal case. His overall jail conduct was

satisfactory. After suspension of sentence and enlargement on bail on

19.09.2003 his involvement in any criminal case has not surfaced. The

prosecution was unable to establish the charge under Section 364A IPC

whereby the child was kidnapped for ransom. The appellant was aged

about 18 years on the date of incident. Nominal roll dated 15.11.2010

records his age 23 years. At the time of addressing arguments on the

point of sentence, age of the appellant was claimed 17 years at the time of

commission of offence and this facts finds mention in the sentence order.

The police had recorded his age in the charge-sheet as 19 years. Taking

into consideration all these mitigating circumstances, the sentence of the

appellant is modified and the appellant is sentenced to undergo the period

already spent by him in this case.

4. The appeal stands disposed of. Trial Court record, if any,

along with copy of this order be sent back to the Trial Court. Bail bond

and surety bond of the appellant stand discharged. Superintendent Jail be

informed.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE October 04, 2013/sa