Delhi High Court
Mohd.Jiyaul vs State on 16 September, 2015
Author: Ashutosh Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.A. 855/2011
Date of Reserve: 09.09.2015
Date of Decision: 16.09.2015
MOHD.JIYAUL ..... Appellant
Through: Ms.Anu Narula, Advocate.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Ms.Alpana Pandey, APP.
ASI Shyam Sunder, P.S.Mukherjee Nagar.
+ CRL.A. 1181/2011
RITU KAPOOR ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Ritesh Oberoi, Advocate.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Ms.Alpana Pandey, APP.
ASI Shyam Sunder, P.S.Mukherjee Nagar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.
1. The appellants have been convicted under Sections 363/364 and 34
of the IPC and have been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment
for seven years and fine of Rs.2000/- for offence under Section 363 and
in case of default of payment Simple Imprisonment for one week; for the
offence under Section 364 of the IPC, Rigorous Imprisonment for ten
years fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of such fine Simple
Imprisonment for a period of one month by judgment dated 13th April,
2011 passed by ASJ-II (North-West), Rohini Courts, Delhi in S.C
No.1205/2010 arising out of FIR No.375/2009 (P.S.Mukherjee Nagar).
The sentences, however, has been ordered to run concurrently with the
benefit of Section 428 to which the appellants are entitled.
2. The appellants have been charged with kidnapping Atul, aged
about 1½ months, out of the lawful guardianship of her mother Smt.Anita
(PW-2). The reason for kidnapping and abducting aforesaid Atul was that
he may be murdered or may be so disposed of as to be put in danger of
being murdered and in furtherance of common intention both the
appellants, having custody of the aforesaid child, left the child at a place
with the intention of abandoning him and thereby committing an offence
under Section 363/34, 364/34 and 317/34 of the IPC.
3. Be it noted that no conviction has been recorded under Section 317
of the Indian Penal Code.
4. The case of the prosecution is that on 13.9.2009 an information
was received at Mukherjee Nagar police station vide DD No.16A
regarding a toddler having been taken away by someone from jhuggi
No.571, Nand Lal Jhuggi Camp, Mukherjee Nagar. On such information,
the police reached the place of occurrence and found that Anita (PW-2)
was searching for her 1½ months old male child namely Atul. Statement
of aforesaid Anita was recorded in which she alleged that on the same
day at about 2 PM while she was at her house, a lady aged about 50 years
came and introduced herself as an Anganwadi worker and inquired about
the health of her child. Anita's eight year old daughter Seema (PW-7)
was also present at that time in the house. Since the toddler Atul had bed
wetted, Anita went to some distance for drying the clothes. When she
came back in a couple of minutes she did not find her son and on inquiry
from Seema, she was told that the lady who had introduced herself as an
Anganwadi worker had taken away the child with her. The physical
description of the lady referred to above was also given by aforesaid
Anita. On the basis of such statement (Ex.PW-2/A) FIR No.375/2009
(P.S.Mukherjee Nagar) was instituted under Sections 363/364/317 and 34
of the IPC.
5. After about sometime, the appellants were arrested in connection
with FIR No.319/2009 (P.S.Hari Nagar) which was instituted under
Sections 363 and 302 IPC. In the aforesaid case, the appellants allegedly
disclosed about their involvement in the present case. Thus the appellants
were arrested in the present case and upon investigation, they were
charge sheeted and sent up for trial.
6. The Trial Court after examining 13 witnesses, convicted and
sentenced the appellants as aforesaid.
7. The prosecution has relied upon the deposition of Anita (PW-2)
who is the mother of the boy, Atul, who allegedly was abducted; Bimla
(PW-3) who is a neighbour of PW-2; Umesh (PW-4), a person who owns
a rickshaw garage; Seema (PW-7), the eight year old daughter of PW-2;
Dr.Jagjeet Singh (PW-5) and Deepak, compounder of PW-5 and the
official witnesses namely the police officers involved with investigation.
8. The appellants have taken the defence that there was no material
before the Trial Court to have convicted them for offences under Sections
363 and 364 of the IPC; the deposition of the witnesses are full of
inconsistencies which are so glaring that it demolishes the entire
prosecution edifice; improbability attached with the statements of PW-2
and PW-4; chain of circumstances leading to the conclusion that the
appellants were responsible for abducting/kidnapping of the son of PW-2
is not complete and the testimony of the doctor namely PW-5, who
deposed that appellant Ritu Kapoor had come with a child for treatment,
being most untrustworthy. It has also been argued that Seema (PW-7) is a
non compos mentis and her statement could not have been relied upon for
convicting the appellants. On behalf of appellant Mohd.Jiyaul, apart from
the aforesaid grounds, it has been argued that neither PW-2 nor PW-4
had any occasion to see him at any point of time; there was positive
reason for him to refuse his participation in the TIP and though he is said
to have accompanied Ritu Kapoor and facilitated the kidnapping of the
boy by providing services of his TSR, no effort has been made to seize
the TSR (a form of a vehicle) nor any details of the same like registration
number etc. have been collected during the course of investigation or
materials adduced before the Trial Court. The appellants, in unison, have
stated that only because the appellants were arrested in another case with
somewhat similar allegations, they were made accused in the present case
also by the investigating agency, adopting a short cut approach in
attempting to bust the present kidnapping case.
9. In order to appreciate the contention of the parties it would be
necessary to first examine the deposition of Anita (PW-2) who is the
mother of the kidnapped boy and on whose statement, the FIR was
registered.
10. Anita (PW-2) has deposed that her family comprises her husband
and three children. In the month of November, 2009, one lady came to
her and asked for a glass of water and she continued to sit outside her
jhuggi. Anita had to go out of her house for drying wet clothes and in the
meantime her son was taken away. Anita came back in about 3-4 minutes
only to find that Seema, another daughter of PW-2, crying and uttering
that the lady who was sitting outside had taken away the boy. Anita
immediately called the PCR on which police officials came. Finding no
clue of the boy, her statement was recorded (Ex.PW-2/A) bearing her
thumb impression. She gave details of the physical attributes of the lady
(Ritu Kapoor), on the basis of which a sketch was prepared (Ex.PW-2/C).
She has further stated that after about 5-6 days appellant Ritu Kapoor was
apprehended by police and she was brought to her house when she
identified her as the same person who had, on the fateful day, come to her
house and had asked for water and had thereafter taken away her child.
Anita has further confirmed the fact that Ritu Kapoor was interrogated in
her presence and she admitted that she had lifted the child for she had
taken a fancy for him and wanted to raise him up. Only because the child
took ill that the appellant, according to PW-2, left the child on road near
her house. Anita has also confirmed that Ritu Kapoor pointed out the
place from where she had lifted the child as also the place where she had
abandoned him after sometime.
11. It was stated by PW-2 that appellant Mohd.Jiyaul was an auto
rickshaw driver and PW-2 was not sure of his relationship with appellant
Ritu Kapoor as Ritu Kapoor sometimes claimed Jiyaul to be her brother
and sometimes her husband.
12. However, PW-2 categorically stated that she saw appellant Jiyaul
for the first time in the Court when the appellants were remanded to
judicial custody in another case. Ritu Kapoor and Mohd.Jiyaul are also
said to have pointed at the hospital where her son was taken when he had
fallen ill. The aforesaid witness, however, later, on being questioned by
the APP, who had sought permission for putting leading questions,
deposed that she had seen appellant Jiyaul for the first time when she had
gone to dry the clothes of her child. She had seen Jiyaul standing next to
an auto rickshaw talking to appellant Ritu Kapoor but she did not hear
the conversation between them.
13. On being cross examined, PW-2 admitted that she had not told the
police that appellant Ritu Kapoor was accompanied by any male person.
Of her own, she tried to explain the difference in her statement by stating
that when she first made her statement before the police, she was not in a
fit state of mind because of her child having been taken away. No
suspicion at that time was raised on appellant Jiyaul as he was only
assumed to be a person roaming around in the area. She has also denied
the statement given in her examination in chief that she had seen Jiyaul
for the first time in Court but admitted of having seen Jiyaul around her
jhuggi on the date of incident and only thereafter in the Court when he
was produced before another Court. She has denied the suggestion that
appellant Ritu Kapoor was picked up from Hari Nagar and was shown to
her by the police before she identified her in the Court of the
Metropolitan Magistrate.
14. Bimla (PW-3) stated before the Court that she works in a factory
and on 13.11.2009 she had returned from her work at around 1 PM. She
spotted appellant Ritu Kapoor sitting outside the jhuggi of PW-2. Only
later, did she come to know that the child of PW-2 was lifted. She was
also cross examined by the APP after seeking permission from the Court.
She has denied the suggestion that she saw the appellant running away
with the child of Anita and going away in an auto. She has not supported
the fact that she had seen another person standing near the auto or that
person was the appellant Jiyaul. What is important to note in her
deposition is that she has pointedly stated that the jhuggi of PW-2 is
situated on the road whereas her jhuggi is opposite to the jhuggi of PW-2.
On the date of incident, many persons were crossing through that road
because of Nirankari Mela.
15. Umesh (PW-4) who owns rickshaw garage near the jhuggi of PW-
2 has testified that appellant Ritu Kapoor was found roaming in the area
on the day of occurrence since 8 AM. A doctor, residing in the same area
raised some suspicion on appellant Ritu Kapoor but PW-4 did not take
any notice of such suspicion. He has deposed that he saw appellant Ritu
Kapoor arguing with another lady. Thereafter PW-4 is stated to have
offered Ritu Kapoor water and she sat in front of Anita's house. PW-4
also spotted a TSR parked on the road near the jhuggi of Anita where one
boy was sitting. In the Court, at the trial, the boy was identified as the
appellant Jiyaul. PW-4 thereafter heard cries of the daughter of PW-2.
Many persons, according to PW-4 had assembled and appellant Ritu
Kapoor was chased but she could escape by sitting in a TSR which sped
away. Appellant Ritu Kapoor was spotted as having wrapped a shawl
upon her body and perhaps she had hidden the child under the shawl.
16. What is important in the statement of PW-4 is that he has deposed
that on the next day of lodging of the first information report, he visited
the police station and got the sketch of appellant Ritu Kapoor prepared
which sketch is Ex.PW-2/C. Ritu Kapoor had prominent marks under
her eyes and, therefore, it was very easy for her to be identified.
17. PW-4 has further contended that appellant Ritu Kapoor was
brought to the jhuggi where everybody who had seen her on the date of
the occurrence, identified her. Mohd.Jiyaul also was identified. PW-4 has
hastened to add that appellant Jiyaul had put a cloth on his face but he
was identified only through his eyes. Both the appellants disclosed before
people at large that they had left the child of Anita on the road after 10
days as the boy had fallen ill. The place from where the boy was lifted
and the place where he was abandoned were pointed by appellant Ritu
Kapoor. The place where the boy was left is a road with lot of traffic.
PW-4 has volunteered to inform the Trial Court that if the boy would
have been left near the house of PW-2, that being a busy road, anybody
would have noticed the child.
18. Dr.Jagjit Singh (PW-5) identified appellant Ritu Kapoor in the
Court and deposed that she had come with a boy claiming him to be her
son, to him for his treatment. PW-5 has stated that she had come to her
on earlier occasions also and every time she brought a different child for
treatment and referred to such child as Ishant and disclosed that such
child was her son. Some objection was raised by his compounder Deepak
Kumar (PW-6) who suspected that appellant Ritu Kapoor was not the
mother of the child which she had brought. This was met with an angry
response by appellant Ritu Kapoor who told his compounder to mind his
own business. The records of his clinic disclosed that appellant Ritu
Kapoor had visited the hospital on 29.10.2009, 31.10.2009 and
06.11.2009 with a different child on all occasions and gave their name as
Ishant on all the three occasions. The photocopies of the records of his
clinic (Ex.PW-5/B) Colly was proved by him. He has stated that on
19.11.2009 appellant Ritu Kapoor had come to his clinic with a small
child aged about 2-3 months who was suffering from Upper Respiratory
Infection. He examined the boy and drew up a medical sheet (Ex.PW-
5/A). When subsequently questioned, PW-5 could not say whether the
appellant, on all occasions brought child of the same age group to his
clinic.
19. Similar is the statement of Deepak (PW-6) who has been working
with PW-5 for the last three years and stated that he would not remember
whether child of the age group of 1, 2 or 3 months was brought by the
appellant. He was also not in a position to state as to whether on every
date as suggested by PW-5 same or different child was brought by
appellant Ritu Kapoor. He, however, admits of not informing the IO of
the present case regarding the visits of Ritu Kapoor at the clinic except
on 19.11.2009 when he had signed the document namely Ex.PW-2/F
(seizure memo of medical sheet and the copy).
20. Seema (PW-7), daughter of PW-2 aged eight years at the time of
her deposition before the Court (but to the Trial Court she appeared to be
of around 4-5 years) was put to initial questions as voir dire to test her
mental and cognitive faculties. She has stated that a lady took away her
brother. She remembered the name of the lady namely Ritu Kapoor.
When she was asked as to how did she come to know about the name of
the appellant, she answered that the lady herself told her name. When she
was asked whether she ever visited the Court before, PW-7 confirmed
that she had earlier gone to another Court along with her mother.
21. From the deposition of the aforesaid witnesses, what transpires is
that the appellants were arrested in another case namely FIR
No.319/2009 (P.S.Hari Nagar) whereafter they were brought to the
jhuggi of PW-2 for their identification. The case of the prosecution is that
when the aforesaid appellants were arrested and disclosed about their
participation in the present case, they were brought to the jhuggi of PW-2
where PW-2 and PW-4 identified appellant Ritu Kapoor as the person
who had visited the jhuggi of PW-2. In such an event, the story of the
prosecution that the appellants disclosed and pointed out the place from
where the boy was lifted and where the boy was later dumped loses all its
significance.
22. Such statements could not have been taken into account as there
was no recovery pursuant to such statement. Moreover, it has been
argued that such statements were confirmed by PW-2 and PW-4.
23. So far as identification of appellant Jiyaul is concerned, it has been
argued that PW-2 in her statement before the police did not speak about
any person waiting outside with an auto rickshaw. Only on being
specially asked by the prosecutor, did PW-2 state that she saw appellant
Jiyaul standing near an auto and talking to appellant Ritu Kapoor. In the
earlier part of her statement, PW-2 has categorically stated that she saw
appellant Jiyaul for the first time in the Court when he was being
remanded in another case. Immediately thereafter, on being questioned,
PW-2 changed her statement and said that it was the second time that she
saw the appellant in Court. For the first time, she had seen appellant
Jiyaul on the day of occurrence standing on the road near an auto
rickshaw. Similarly, PW-4 only claims before the Trial Court that he had
observed a TSR parked near the jhuggi of PW-2 and had spotted a boy
sitting there. However, in Court he identified the boy as appellant Jiyaul
but frankly admitted that the boy whom he had spotted near the TSR did
not have any moustache, meaning thereby that the person who was
spotted by PW-4 was a person of very young age.
24. From the deposition of witnesses namely PWs.2, 4 and 7, it
appears that they all were made to know that the appellants were accused
of child lifting for which another case was lodged and they had the
occasion to see the appellants when they were brought by police to their
area for identification.
25. With respect to the identification of appellant Jiyaul, the evidence
of the aforesaid witnesses are very shaky and do not appear to be
plausible or acceptable. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant
Jiyaul that if Jiyaul would have been spotted on the day of occurrence by
PW-2, the police would have asked for the physical description of
appellant Jiyaul as well. The records reveal that description of physical
traits of only Ritu Kapoor was given by PW-2, on the basis of which a
sketch was prepared. Had Jiyaul been present, his sketch also would have
been prepared. There is nothing in the deposition of PW-5 & PW-6
namely Dr.Jagjeet Singh and his compounder Deepak respectively to
show that appellant Jiyaul had come along with appellant Ritu Kapoor to
the clinic of PW-5 for getting the boy medically examined.
26. On a closer scrutiny of the deposition of PW-5 and PW-6, it would
appear that their statements suffer from serious incongruities, making
them completely unreliable. PW-5 who claims himself to be a doctor and
who runs a hospital, allegedly found appellant Ritu Kapoor coming to his
clinic on a number of occasions with a different child and on all such
occasions appellant Ritu Kapoor disclosed that she was the mother of the
child and surprisingly on all such occasions appellant Ritu Kapoor gave
only one name to the child namely Ishant. This ought to have rung alarm
bells in the mind of the doctor who should have informed the local police
or should have taken care to find out as to who was Ritu Kapoor.
27. Assuming for the sake of argument that what PW-5 spoke before
the Court was true, in that case also, this Court is left with no material to
ascertain whether the boy who was brought to him for treatment by Ritu
Kapoor on 19.11.2009 was the son of PW-2. The evidence of PW-6, the
compounder of PW-5, is also not worth acceptance as he could not speak
with certainty whether he saw different child at different times with
appellant Ritu Kapoor. Their not informing the police on the second
occasion at least, makes them highly unreliable.
28. There is another aspect to the story. If the deposition of PW-5 is to
be believed that the appellant Ritu Kapoor came to his clinic for seeking
treatment of an ailing child who was suffering from Upper Respiratory
Infection, it cannot then be said that the child was kidnapped for the
purposes of being murdered or other purposes, attracting the mischief of
Section 364 of the IPC. Section 364 of the IPC reads as hereunder:-
"364. Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder.--
Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person in order that
such person may be murdered or may be so disposed of
as to be put in danger of being murdered, shall be
punished with [imprisonment for life] or rigorous
imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years,
and shall also be liable to fine."
29. The word kidnapping has not been defined in the Code. Section
362 of the IPC defines abduction. Whoever by force compels, or by any
deceitful means induces, any person to go from any place, is said to
abduct that person. Section 363 of the IPC provides for punishment for
kidnapping which inter-alia reads that whoever kidnaps any person from
India or from lawful guardianship, shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and
shall also be liable to fine. Section 363A of the IPC prescribes
kidnapping or maiming a minor for the purposes of begging. Section 364
of the IPC deals with kidnapping or abducting in order to murder. Thus
if the story of appellant Ritu Kapoor abducting the child is accepted to be
true, the very fact that she brought the child to the clinic of a doctor for
treatment takes the case away from the pale of Section 364 of the IPC.
30. To establish the offence punishable under Section 364 of the IPC,
it must be proved that the person charged with the offence had the
requisite intention at the time of abduction, that the person so abducted
would be murdered or would be disposed of as to be put in danger of
being murdered. Even if after the abduction, the accused person placed
the abducted person in danger of being murdered, that would also not
establish the charge of abduction punishable under Section 364 of the
IPC. The intention at the time of abduction is relevant.
31. In a case under Section 364 of the IPC, the motive is of great
importance and if there is absence of any motive, it would be difficult to
maintain the conviction under Section 364 of the IPC.
32. The deposition of the official witnesses are of no help but for
bringing home the offence under Section 363 of the IPC against appellant
Ritu Kapoor.
33. Constable Devender (PW-8) has deposed that he joined the
investigation with SI Pradeep Kumar (PW-13). He has stated that the
appellants were produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate from
judicial custody in muffled faces. Only after seeking permission from the
Metropolitan Magistrate, PW-13 interrogated the appellants and
ultimately arrested them. The arrest memos namely Ex.PW-8/A and
Ex.PW-8/B respectively of the aforesaid appellants (Ex.PW-8/C and 8/D)
also bears the signature of PW-8.
34. Lady Constable Sunita (PW-9) has deposed the fact that on
5.1.2010 while appellant Ritu Kapoor was on police remand, she was in
her custody. She has testified to the fact that during the course of
interrogation appellant Ritu Kapoor disclosed that on 13.11.2009 she had
abducted a three month male child from one of the jhuggis of Nand Lal
Camp. On 19.11.2009, the child became sick and was then taken to the
clinic of PW-5. Constable Samay Singh (PW-10) and Head Constable
Naresh Pal (PW-11) have confirmed the fact that DD No.16A regarding
missing of a child from the Nand Lal Camp Jhuggi camp was received
and pursuant to such information the aforesaid witnesses came to the
place of occurrence. Head Constable Naresh Pal (PW-11) has clearly
stated that the sketch of one suspect i.e. Ritu Kapoor was prepared and no
sketch of any other person was prepared as the eye witnesses were not at
all clear about the identity of other male person. Aforesaid PW-11 has
also stated that the eye witnesses did not disclose the details of TSR
driver or the number of TSR in which child was taken away by the
kidnapper.
35. SI Pradeep Kumar (PW-13) confirms the fact that the appellants
were taken on police remand and were brought to Nand Lal Jhuggi camp
where PW-2 identified appellant Ritu Kapoor as the same lady who had
lifted her child. The appellants had also taken the police party to the
clinic of PW-5, Dr.Jagjeet Singh where the child was treated. PW-13,
however, has admitted that he recorded the disclosure statement of Ritu
Kapoor but did not request any public person or Court staff to join the
investigation. He did not even give any kind of notice regarding the
aforesaid proceedings. He admits that till 27.11.2009 there was no clue of
involvement of appellant Jiyaul in the present case and he was only orally
informed by the first IO that there was one person along with the TSR
who had accompanied appellant Ritu Kapoor. He also has admitted that
he has not seized any TSR in the present case as the number of TSR was
not known. Even the license of appellant Jiyaul, during the whole
investigation, was not seized. The investigating officer was not even
aware whether appellant Jiyaul was the TSR driver.
36. Thus from the deposition of the aforesaid witnesses what comes to
the fore is that appellant Ritu Kapoor visited the jhuggi of Anita (PW-2).
She has been identified by Anita (PW-2), Bimla (PW-3: though she has
not supported the major part of the prosecution version), Umesh (PW-4)
and Seema (PW-7). All of them but PW-3 have spoken about appellant
Ritu Kapoor having taken away the child with her.
37. It appears rather curious that appellant Ritu Kapoor fled from the
scene without her getting caught. However, the story of Ritu Kapoor
having escaped on the TSR driven by appellant Jiyaul has not been
established.
38. The evidence regarding the appellant Jiyaul having assisted
appellant Ritu Kapoor in taking away the child on his vehicle is weak and
no categorical statement has been made nor any evidence has been
adduced. PW-13, the IO of the case has also specifically stated that
neither any effort was made to know whether appellant Jiyaul had the
driving license or not nor the number of the TSR was ascertained and
logically, therefore, the TSR was not seized. Thus this part of the story of
the prosecution that Ritu Kapoor escaped with the child on the TSR
which was driven by Jiyaul is completely demolished. There is thus no
evidence with regard to the participation of the appellant Jiyaul in the
aforementioned occurrence.
39. What cannot be doubted is that Ritu Kapoor visited the jhuggi and
for some reason or the other took away the child from the jhuggi. Since
Seema (PW-7) was herself a child, she could not offer any resistance.
The purpose, albeit, of such abduction remains unknown. The evidence
of Dr.Jagjeet Singh (PW-5) further confirms the issue. Had the purpose
been to murder the child, Ritu Kapoor would not have undertaken the
risk of visiting a doctor for the treatment of the child when on earlier
occasions also she had visited the clinic along with different child on
different occasions. Perhaps Ritu Kapoor had taken a fancy for the boy
and had taken him temporarily for her amusement. We do not know as to
what was the reason for the abduction of the child. The fact remains that
Atul, the son of PW-2 was removed from the guardianship of PW-2 and
this brings Ritu Kapoor within the mischief of Section 363 of the IPC.
40. The Trial Court has rightly acquitted the appellants for the offence
under Section 317 of the IPC for want of any evidence in that regard.
41. Thus on the basis of the discussions made, the conviction of
appellant Ritu Kapoor under Section 364 of the IPC does not appear to be
sustainable, and is therefore set aside. The appellant Ritu Kapoor stands
convicted only for the offence under Section 363 of the IPC.
42. For paucity of any clear, cogent and unshakeable evidence against
appellant Jiyaul, his conviction and sentence is absolutely unwarranted.
As a result, appellant Jiyaul is acquitted of all offences and is directed to
be released from jail if not wanted in any other case.
43. The conviction of appellant Ritu Kapoor under Section 363 of the
IPC is sustained, but, for the facts and circumstances of the case, the
sentence awarded to her is modified. She had been sentenced to Rigorous
Imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs.2000/- for the offence
under Section 363 IPC. It has been stated at the bar that the appellant
Ritu Kapoor has remained in custody for about six years by now. In the
facts and circumstances of the case, interest of justice would be met if the
appellant Ritu Kapoor is sentenced for the period which she has already
undergone in custody.
44. Thus the Appeal No.855/2011 (Mohd.Jiyaul) is allowed.
45. The Appeal No.1181/2011 (Ritu Kapoor) is partly allowed and
appellant Ritu Kapoor is only convicted under Section 363 of the IPC and
sentenced to the period which she has already undergone.
46. The Trial Court records be sent back.
47. Two copies of this judgment be transmitted to the Trial Court for
record and compliance.
Crl.M.B No.171/2014 in Crl.A No.1181/2011
1. In view of the appeal having been partly allowed, no order is
required to be passed in the instant application.
2. Dismissed as infructuous.
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J
SEPTEMBER 16, 2015
k
