Delhi High Court
Vinod @ Vinode @ Bhole vs State on 25 February, 2016
Author: G. S. Sistani
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.A.NO.1492/13
% Judgment reserved on 24th November, 2015
Judgment delivered on 25th February, 2016
VINOD @ VINODE @ BHOLE ...Appellant
Through: Mr.Praveen Kumar, Advocate
Versus
STATE ...Respondent
Through: Mr.Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP for the State
+ CRL.A.NO.182/2014
PREM CHAND @ FAUZI ...Appellant
Through: Mr.Neeraj Bhardwaj, Advocate
Versus
STATE ...Respondent
Through: Mr.Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP for the State
+ CRL.A.NO.1595/2013
ASHOK KUMAR ...Appellant
Through: Mr.Habibur Rehman, Advocate
Versus
STATE ...Respondent
Through: Mr.Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP for the State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G. S. SISTANI, J.
1. Since the present appeals arise out of a common judgment and order on
sentence, the same have been heard together and disposed of by a
common judgment.
2. Present appeals arise out of a judgment dated 20.07.2013 and order on
conviction dated 30.08.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Delhi, by which the appellants have been convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, under Section
368 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal
Code, under Section 344 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 120B
of the Indian Penal Code, under Section 347 of the Indian Penal Code
read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 364A
of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code
and sentenced them as under:
Offence under Section Punishment
Section 120 of the Indian Penal Rigorous imprisonment for five
Code years and to pay fine Rs.1,000/- in
default to undergo simple
imprisonment for one month.
Section 368 of the Indian Penal Rigorous imprisonment for five
Code read with Section 120 of the years and to pay fine Rs.1,000/- in
Indian Penal Code default to undergo simple
imprisonment for one month.
Section 344 of the Indian Penal Rigorous imprisonment for two
Code read with Section 120 of the years and to pay fine Rs.1,000/- in
Indian Penal Code default to undergo simple
imprisonment for one month.
Section 347 of the Indian Penal Rigorous imprisonment for two
Code read with Section 120 of the years and to pay fine Rs.1,000/- in
Indian Penal Code default to undergo simple
imprisonment for one month.
Section 364A of the Indian Penal Life imprisonment for two years
Code read with Section 120 of the and to pay fine Rs.2,000/- in
Indian Penal Code default to undergo simple
imprisonment for two months.
All the sentences shall run concurrently
3. The case of the prosecution as noticed by the learned Trial Court is as
under:
"Factual matrix of the prosecution case is that on 16.09.2007
Mahipal (PW1) visited PS New Ashok Nagar and complained about
missing of his brother Ajay (PW5) and neighbour Ravinder Kumar
(PW6) since 13.09.2007. He further told that he and relatives of
PW6 had been receiving ransom calls. Ins. Arun Kumar (PW16)
prepared rukka and got FIR registered under Section 364A IPC.
Call detail records (CDRs) of mobile No. 9871276142 belong to
victim Ravinder and phone No. 9971427767 belonging to Ajay were
analyzed. Number 9997436407 was found as suspect number. On
the basis of analysis of CDRs, it was found that victims were
somewhere in the area of District Ferozabad, UP. On 01.10.2007,
PW16 along with Insp. Ram Kishore (PW15) reached at the office
of SSP, Ferozabad and from local intelligence, he came to know
that the gang of accused Vinod is involved in such activities. On
04.10.2007, PW16 with other police staffs reached PS-Matsena,
District Ferozabad, UP and there he met SO K. K. Mishra (PW19).
A strategy was planned for launching combing operation in the
area and various teams were constituted. The area was searched
next day in the afternoon. PW19 received a secret information that
a person named Vinod is standing near Sikera Mata Mandir and is
waiting for someone and he has been beholding two persons of
Delhi. Team of PW16 reached at Sikera Mata Mandir and on the
pointing out of informer, accused Vinod was apprehended. From
his possession, one mobile phone belonging to Ravinder (PW6) was
recovered. During interrogation, accused Vinod made disclosure
statement and led police party to Beehar at a distance of 1½ - 2
kilometers from that place. There two victims i.e. Ajay and
Ravinder (PW5 and PW6) were found lying on the ground with
their feet tied with rope and their eyes were tied with „angochhas‟.
Associates of accused Vinod managed to run away. Both the
victims were in bad shape as they had lost their weight, wearing
dirty clothes and appear not to have shaved for 20-25 days. Both
the victims were brought to Delhi. On 12.12.2007, PW17 received
information that accused Prem Chand @ Fauzi has been arrested
by the police of PS Makhanpur, District Ferozabad, UP. He sought
his production warrant and got him produced in the court on
15.12.2007. Accused Prem Chand was arrested in this case. After
investigation police filed first chargesheet against both the accused
under section 364A/34 IPC.
2. On 20.04.2009 further investigation of this case was assigned
to ASI Rajender Singh (PW18). On 23.04.2009, he moved an
application for production warrant accused Ashok, who was in
judicial custody. On 27.04.2009, accused Ashok was arrested in
this case. Efforts were made to arrest other accused but they could
not be arrested and they were got declared as proclaimed offenders
(Pos). Police filed supplementary chargesheet against accused
Ashok Kumar and other co-accused by showing them as
Proclaimed Offenders. Supplementary chargesheet has been filed
under Section 364A/344/34 IPC."
4. Learned Counsel for the appellants submit that the impugned judgment
and order on sentence is based on conjectures and surmises and the trial
Court has erred in reaching a conclusion of guilt against the appellants. It
is strongly urged before this Court that there are material inconsistencies
between the testimonies of the witnesses. The learned Trial Court has
failed to take into account that as per the prosecution the victims were
recovered on 05.10.2007, however, as per the complainant PW1, the
victims were recovered on 04.10.2007. It is further contended that there
are material contradictions with regard to the date when the alleged
ransom letter was received. Counsel contend that as per PW1 ransom
letter was received on 21.09.2007 while according to PW2 ransom letter
was received on 18.09.2007, whereas as per Investigating Officer, PW15,
ransom letter was handed over to him on 20.09.2007.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant Vinod submits that the recoveries,
which have been made at his instance i.e. mobile phone, rope and
angochha stated to have been recovered by the police at the instance of
accused Vinod were not sealed and hence can not be relied upon in
evidence brought on record by the prosecution that mobile phones which
as per prosecution PW5 and PW6 were carrying actually belonged to him.
It is further contended by learned counsel for appellant Vinod that there is
no evidence to show that mobile phones which PW5 & PW6 were
carrying actually belonged to them. It is also contended that there are
material contradictions regarding as to whether PW5 & PW6 were taken
to Police Station Matsena or directly brought to Delhi immediately after
they were rescued. It is pointed out that as per the testimony of PW19,
victims PW5 & PW6 and the accused person were not brought to Police
Station Matsena whereas as per PW5 and PW6 after they were rescued
they were taken to Police Station Matsena, however, in the testimony of
PW15 and PW16, who were mainly involved in the rescue operation,
deposed that after the victims were rescued, they along with the accused
Vinod were brought to Delhi. According to learned counsel for the
appellant Vinod, this major contradiction creates serious doubt in the
story of the prosecution.
6. It is also pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant Vinod that the
learned Trial Court has failed to consider that in the first disclosure
statement, Ex.PW3/B, made by appellant Vinod, when he was initially
apprehended by the police, he did not name the other two co-accused
persons i.e. Prem Chand @ Fauzi and Ashok Kumar. It is, however,
pointed out that the aforesaid two names were incorporated in the second
disclosure statement which according to the appellant Vinod was
fabricated to implicate them. Counsel contends that in case the other two
appellants, namely, Prem Chand @ Fauzi and Ashok were in any way
connected with the offence, they should have been named in the first
disclosure statement made by Vinod.
7. It is also pointed out by the counsel for the appellant that in the entire case
not a single independent witness was associated in the investigation and
only family members of the victims, who were interested witnesses
deposed against them. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
learned Trial Court has failed to take into account that PW5 was lodged in
Tihar Jail in a robbery and murder case along with appellant Ashok
Kumar, and on account of enmity between appellant Ashok Kumar and
PW5, Appellant Ashok Kumar was falsely implicated in the case.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the entire manner of
the investigation of the present case would come under a doubt as despite
the statement made that victims were beaten daily, enough food were not
provided, they were tied with chains for 22 days long and no MLC of the
victims were got prepared thus the testimony of the victims can not be
relied upon. If there was any truth in the story of the prosecution, the
bodies of the victims would have ligature marks, rashes and injuries.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant Ahsok Kumar and Prem Chand submit
that no recoveries were made at their instance.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant Vinod has submitted that appellant has
been falsely implicated in the present case as he was arrested on
04.10.2007 by the investigating team from Subzi Mandi without assigning
any reasons. In support of this contention, it is pointed out that brother of
the appellant Vinod in view of the illegal arrest has telegraphed to SSP,
DIG on 05.10.2007 informing them about illegal arrest of Vinod, his
brother.
11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that prosecution
has been able to prove its case without any shadow of doubt. It is further
submitted that the ransom letter was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory
and report has been received which reveals that the ransom letter
contained the handwriting of the victim as well as of accused Vinod. It is
also contended that repeated calls were made and letters were sent for
ransom and based on secret information, first Vinod was arrested, who led
the police party to the jungle where the victims were recovered. It is also
submitted that the victims have rightly pointed towards the appellants and
their testimonies are consistent with regard to the manner in which they
were abducted by the appellant Ashok Kumar and then handed over to
appellant Prem Chand @ Fauzi and Vinod. It is further submitted that
victims were in fact medically examined at Delhi and only thereafter they
were handed over to their respective family. It is also submitted that it is
wrong to suggest that Vinod was arrested on 04.09.2007, he was arrested
on 05.09.2007 which is evident from the testimony of PW2. Learned
counsel for the State further submits that the contradictions which have
been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants are minor
which do not go to the root the case of the prosecution and do not go in
favour in of the appellants.
12. Before the rival submissions of counsel for the parties are considered, we
deem it appropriate to analyse the testimonies of some of the important
witnesses.
13. PW-1, Shri Mahipal, is the real brother of one of the victims i.e. Ajay Pal.
PW-1 is also the complainant. As per the testimony of PW-1, on
13.9.2007 around 11.00 a.m. he was present at his shop when a person
approached him and enquired about his brother, Ajay. PW-1 informed the
said person that Ajay was nearby and would come within 10-15 minutes.
On asking, he informed PW-1 that his name was Ashok. After 10-15
minutes, Ajay came to the shop. Ajay Pal was informed that one Ashok,
was asking his whereabouts. After 10-15 minutes Ashok again came to
the shop. PW-1 informed Ajay that this was the person, who had come to
the shop and asked about his whereabouts. Ashok informed Ajay Pal that
he had some work with him. Both started conversing outside the shop of
PW-1 and while talking to each other they left towards Kalyan Puri side.
After five minutes one Ravinder, also came to the shop of PW-1, who
had asked about Ajay. PW-1 informed him that Ajay had gone towards
Kalyan Puri side. Ravinder parked his motorcycle with helmet in front of
the shop of PW-1 and proceeded in the direction of Kalyan Puri. PW-1
has further testified that his brother, Ajay Pal, did not return till evening.
On the next day, PW-1 enquired from his sister and also from the
Villagers about his brother, Ajay Pal. PW-1 has further testified that on
15.9.2007 a telephone call was received by his brother-in-law, Shri Ashok
Nagar, at 8.30 a.m. and he informed PW-1 that he was receiving calls
from phone of one Ravinder and the caller was asking for ransom of
Rs.25.00 lakhs for release of Ajay Pal and Ravinder. Brother-in-law of
PW-1 gave him the number of Ravinder but Ravinder did not pick his
phone. PW-1 was again informed by his brother-in-law that arrangement
for Rs.25.00 lakhs should be made. Later on the place of delivery was told
as Kachora Ghat, Hanuman Mandir, Etawah. Caller had also informed
him that in case the Police was contacted Ajay Pal and Ravinder would be
killed. PW-1 contacted the family members of Ravinder, who also
informed that they had received a phone call demanding ransom of
Rs.25.00 lakhs. PW-1 has further testified that around 9/10 a.m. he
received a call on his PCO phone from the phone of Ravinder, which
number had been given to him by his brother-in-law. The caller demanded
Rs.25.00 lakhs from him in lieu of release of Ajay Pal and Ravinder. PW-
1 was advised not to contact the Police, failing which they would lose
both the persons. PW-1 has also testified that on 16.9.2007 a report was
lodged with the Police giving details of the entire facts. His statement was
recorded as Ex.PW-1/A. He described the person, who came to his shop
enquiring about his brother Ajay, had a dense moustache, he was wearing
goggles and was 5'8" tall. PW-1 also testified that he received calls from
the abductor many times demanding money and threatening not to report
the matter to the Police. It is further testified by this witness that ransom
letter was received by his brother, Devender, who had delivered the said
letter (Exhibit PW-1/B) to the Police in his presence. A similar letter
(Exhibit PW-1/C) was received by the family of Ravinder. The letters
were in the handwriting of his brother, Ajay Pal, and Ravinder. Initially,
he testified that he cannot identify those letters but could identify the
handwriting of his brother Ajay. This witness also testified that on
4.10.2007 police got recovered his brother, Ajay Pal, and Ravinder from
Etawah.
14. On the next date of the examination-in-chief, PW-1 identified the letter
(Ex.P-1) and the envelope (Ex.P-2) to be those, which were taken in
possession by the Police. This witness has also testified that Rs.10.00
lakhs were demanded vide the said letter.
15. PW-1 was cross-examined at length. During cross-examination, he
testified that his brother had not informed him specifically where he was
going. He further testified that his brother used to sleep on a wooden
plank in the shop. Size of the shop was described as 10x12 sq. ft. It is
further testified that occasionally, his brother would go to the house of
their sister. He also testified that although there was a milk shop, a washer
man shop and a grocery shop nearby his shop yet he did not know their
names. During cross-examination, PW-1 could not tell the nature of
clothes worn by the person, who had come to his shop. He also described
the said man as having height of about 5'9" and was having a beard. In
Court PW-1 had identified Ashok as the person, who had come to his
shop. PW-1 denied the suggestion that Ashok had been falsely implicated
at the instance of his brother, Ajay Pal, who was lodged in Tihar Jail
along with Ashok. He also denied the suggestion that it was in his
knowledge that his brother, Ajay Pal, had threatened Ashok to falsely
implicate him in another matter. This witness has also testified that
ransom letter was received by him on 21.09.2007.
16. It is the case of the appellants that PW-1, Mahipal Singh, is not a reliable
witness. It is further the case of the appellants that there are material
contradictions in the evidence of PW-1 as far as the appellant Ashok,
visiting the shop in question is concerned.
17. PW-2, Sandeep Singh Verma @ Sintu, has testified that he is running a
shop at Ghaziabad. On 15.9.2007 at 9.30 a.m. he received a phone call
from Prem Chand @ Fauzi, who informed him that Ravinder and Ajay
Pal were in his custody and Rs.25.00 lakhs were demanded for their
release, which were to be delivered at Kachora Ghat, Hanuman Temple.
The caller also cautioned PW-2 not to inform the Police or else both,
Ravinder and Ajay, would be killed. PW-2 also testified that Ravinder
was his maternal uncle and he was residing with him since childhood at
Village Dagarpur. He also testified that this fact was informed to other
family members including maternal aunt, Smt.Poonam Verma. On
16.9.2007, he along with Mahipal, brother of Ajay (PW-1), visited the
Police Station and reported the matter. This witness also testified that he
was informed by the caller that he would receive letters in the
handwritings of Ajay Pal and Ravinder and on 18.9.2007 a postman had
delivered a letter at his house at Village Dagarpur. The said letter was in
the handwriting of his maternal uncle, Ravinder. As per the letter money
was to be arranged as soon as possible, failing which Ravinder would be
killed. After receipt of the letter another phone call was received on
19.9.2007 between 8.30 and 9.00 p.m. The caller made Ravinder talk to
this witness. Ravinder told him that the demand should be accepted,
money should be arranged even if the house and shops are to be sold and
in case the money was not arranged the abductors would kill him. At that
juncture, his maternal aunt, Smt. Poonam Verma, also requested to have a
talk with Ravinder and she was allowed to talk to Ravinder, who
reiterated the same facts to Poonam. Thereafter the phone was
disconnected. This witness has also testified that similar letters were
received in the house of Ajay Pal, which was handed over to the Police.
PW-2 has also testified that the caller was in constant touch with them.
The caller asked them to reach Kachora Ghar, Hanuman Temple, via
Jaswant Nagar.
18. As per PW-2 on 23.9.2007, he along with Devender, brother of Ajay Pal,
and driver proceeded for Jaswant Nagar by a car. They stayed at
Firozabad in the night as they became late. They reached Jaswant Nagar
in the morning on 24.9.2007. On his mobile number 9410054905 he
received a call from the number of Ravinder at 9.30 a.m. As per this
witness, he used to receive calls of the caller from the same very number
of Ravinder at his mobile, besides landline phone. The caller had
informed that they were present in Jaswant Nagar. The caller instructed
them to reach Kachora Ghat and further enquired about Prem Chand
Fauzi. They made efforts to trace Prem Chand Fauzi but could not do so.
Another call was received and they were directed to reach Village Roora.
But none came to contact them. The caller again instructed them to reach
at Ahir Tola. They reached the said place. They were all along followed
by the Police team. They were again informed by the caller to reach the
house of a person behind the petrol pump. When they reached the said
place, they were again informed to reach Village Sirsa. The details were
being informed by this witness telephonically to Inspector Ram Kishore
Meena. At night, this witness stayed in a hotel at Etawah, as directed by
the Inspector. Again the caller instructed them to reach before a Professor
at Jaswant Nagar. They met the Professor, who assured them that the
kidnapped persons would be traced out. Thereafter the caller instructed
them to reach home and arrange for the money and consequently they
reached home on 25.9.2007 without any clue of Ajay Pal and Ravinder.
19. On 26.9.2007 again a call was received by this witness from the same
caller. The caller had instructed this witness to arrange for money, fixing
the last date as 30.9.2007, failing which, Ajay and Ravinder would be
killed. On the following morning, again a phone call was received. At the
request of this witness, the caller allowed this witness to talk to Ravinder.
Ravidner had repeated the same conversation. Time was extended upto
4.10.2007 for arranging money.
20. As per this witness, the caller kept on contacting him about the
arrangement of money. On 4.10.2007 PW-2 went to Etawah by train
along with Atma Ram Verma for arranging money. Around 9 or 9.30
p.m., he received a call from Inspector Ram Kishore Meena asking him to
remain present at Etawah. On the following day i.e. 5.10.2007 around
8.30 or 9.00 a.m. this witness received a call from Inspector Ram Kishore
Meena informing him that Ajay Pal and Ravinder had been rescued. He
was called at Police Station Matsena. On reaching the Police Station Ajay
Pal and Ravinder were found. After meeting them they returned to Delhi.
PW-2 was also cross-examined in detail.
21. Another important witness is PW-3, HC Naresh, who has testified that on
4.10.2007 he along with SI Arun Kumar, Inspector Ram Kishore and
other police staff had reached Police Station Matsena, District Firozabad,
in connection with the investigation of this case. As per his testimony, the
above persons had proceeded from Delhi on 1.10.2007 by a private
vehicle. Special staff officials of North-East District, Delhi, were already
present at Police Station Matsena. I.O. of the case contacted S.O. of
Police Station Matesena, namely, Sh. K.K. Mishra. A plan was made to
get the abducted persons, Ajay Pal and Ravinder, released. Police party
was divided in two teams, consisting of four members in each. This
witness had accompanied Inspector Ram Kishore Meena, SI Arun and SO
K.K. Mishra. Both these teams started combing operation during evening
in the forest area of Village Sikora. Further, as per the testimony of this
witness, on 5.10.2007 SO K.K. Mishra had received information around
12.30 noon that a person was waiting near Sikora Kali Mata Wala Mandir,
whose name was Vinod, who had kidnapped two persons and demanded
ransom for their release. The entire team reached the informed place at
12.45 p.m. The person was over powered. This witness identified Vinod
present in Court. Search was conducted and two mobile phones i.e. (i)
Black coloured LG mobile phone and (ii) Silver coloured NOKIA mobile
phone were recovered from his possession.
22. The I.O. informed that LG mobile phone belonged to Ravinder and Silver
coloured NOKIA phone was of Vinod, who were abducted. Details of
Mobile numbers including IMEI numbers were incorporated in the seizure
memo. On interrogation Vinod disclosed that he could lead the Police to
the forest of Sikora to enable them to recover the abducted persons i.e.
Ravinder and Ajay. The disclosure statement of Vinod is Exhibit PW-3/B
and the arrest memo and search memo are Exhibit 3/C and D,
respectively. All the above documents were signed by this witness at
points 'A'. On reaching the spot two persons were found tied with rope
pieces and their eyes were tied with a cloth. Both the persons, namely,
Ravinder and Ajay, were untied and released. Rope pieces and cloth
pieces were seized by the IO, Exhibit PW-3/E. Ravinder and Ajay were
recovered by memo Exhibit PW-3/F. Accused were brought to Police
Station Matsena and thereafter Police officials along with two victims
returned to Delhi. Ravinder and Ajay were examined at LBS Hospital and
handed over to their family members. This witness identified the mobile
phone, two towels (angochas) and two pieces of jute rope.
23. During cross-examination, PW-3 could not tell the DD number vide
which they had proceeded to Firozabad nor could he tell the time of
departure. He also could not tell the Registration number of the vehicle
Qualis nor he recalled the time of reaching Police Station Matsena. He
also could not tell the number of arrival entry at Police Station. He
confirmed that the victims, Ravinder and Ajay Pal, had been tied with the
ropes. None from the Village Sikora was called during the disclosure
statement.
24. PW4, Shri Atma Ram, who was working as ASI in Delhi Police, has
testified that Ravinder is his brother-in-law and Ajay is the neighbour of
Ravinder. He has further testified that on 14.9.2007 he was telephonically
informed by Smt.Poonam, wife of Ravinder, that Ravidner and Ajay had
been kidnapped and a demand of Rs.25.00 lakhs as ransom has been made
for their release. This witness also testified that phone calls of the caller
were being tapped by Sandeep. The Police was informed and the matter
was being pursued. It is further testified that on 5.10.2007 he was present
at Dagar Pur. He had received information through Police that Ajay and
Ravinder had been rescued. He along with Poonam, Sintu and other
persons went to Police Station New Ashok Nagar. Around 11.30 p.m. the
Police reached with Ajay and Ravinder and one accused person Vinod,
whom he identified in Court.
25. PW5, Ajay, and PW6, Ravinder, are the victims. PW5 has testified that
Mahipal (PW1) is his real brother, who runs a grocery shop at Village
Kondli. He also used to look after the said shop. He further testified that
in the year 1997, he was arrested by the police in connection with a
robbery and murder case, which was registered at Police Station Mehrauli,
Delhi. In jail he came in contact with another person, namely, Ashok with
whom he became friendly. Although he was released in the year 2000-
2001 Ashok continued to be confined in Tihar Jail. In August, 2007,
Ashok had come to his village and met him. Ashok informed PW5 that
after his release he started a business at Bombay and after winding up of
his business at Bombay he settled in Firozabad. Ashok sought the help of
PW5 to purchase a plot at NOIDA or Delhi to enable him to start his
business. PW5 assured help to Ashok in this regard and informed that he
was having a shop at Kondli. The family members of PW5 including one,
Devender, were present when Ashok had met him at the Village. Ashok
had requested PW5 to accompany him to his village with a view to assure
his wife that PW-5 is his well-wisher and may help him in connection
with his business at Delhi, as his wife was apprehensive that none would
support Ashok in the area of Delhi or NOIDA. Ashok had met them at the
bus stand and requested PW-5 to accompany him to Firozabad. Ashok
also suggested that they should travel to Firozabad by motocycle but PW5
declined the request of Ashok and ultimately all the three persons came to
the shop of PW-1 at Kondli by that motorcycle. Ashok had alighted from
the motorcycle near a barber shop at Kondli for shaving, which was at a
distance of about 10-15 steps from the shop of PW5. He had conveyed
this fact to his brother, Mahipal. He also parked his motorcycle at this
shop. PW5 conveyed to his brother that he had to go to Firozabad with his
friend. Ashok had then come to the shop. His brother questioned him and
he got his brother introduced with Ashok and thereafter all the three
persons proceeded to Firozabad after boarding a bus from Anand Vihar
around 3.00 or 3.30 p.m. they boarded bus for Etah. Around 7:30-8:00
PM accused Ashok made a call from his mobile phone while they were
travelling. Accused took his phone and talked with someone after shifting
to back seat. Ashok told him that he was informing his wife so that she
may prepare food for them. They reached Firozabad at about 10-
10:30PM. Accused Ashok made a call from nearby PCO. One person met
him near PCO. Two persons came there on motorcycle. He and PW6 were
made to sit on motorcycle. One motorcycle was being driven by accused
Vinod and other motorcycle was being driven by accused Prem Chand @
Fauzi. They covered a distance of 8-10 KM. Thereafter 6-7 persons met
them on the way. Those persons took out the ignition key from the
motorcycle. One of them put country-made revolver on his temporal
region. The person who was sitting behind him on motorcycle caught hold
of him by his collar. Thereafter his eyes were tied with a cloth band and
they were directed to keep quite failing which they were threatened to be
killed. Thereafter their hands were tied by rope and they were taken on
foot from that place. He covered distance of 2-3 KM and he was made to
sit in a place. He was wearing four gold rings and was having mobile
phone and Rs. 4,000/- Rs. 5,000/-, all these things were taken away. He
requested those persons to let them go but they were told that they have
abducted them (Hamne tumhari pakad kar li). On being asked about
Ashok, he was told that they have taken him from accused Ashok in lieu
of Rs. 20,000/- paid as advance and rest of money has to be paid. From
the voice of Ravinder, he felt his presence there.
26. PW5 further deposed that he was told that their Chief (mukhiya) would
come in the morning. He was kept in chain. His hands were tied with
angochha and his eyes were tied with band. Cotton was inserted in his
ears. Nothing was given except bread for eating. Mukhiya came; he and
PW6 were made to sit adjacent to each other. His eyes band was removed
and he was covered with cloth. He was not able to see the face of
mukhiya. He was provided a paper and pen, mukhiya asked him to write a
letter demanding Rs.10,00,000/- from his family in lieu of his release.
Initially they had talked about Rs.35,00,000/- thereafter they came down
to Rs.25,00,000/- and lastly he was directed to write Rs.10,00,000/- for
his release for which he wrote a letter. Again his eyes were tied with a
band. He provided phone number of his brother in law. Subsequently he
was assured that they had talked with his family members and they would
be released within 3-4 days. PW6 was also forced to write a similar letter.
He was provided roti and chatni in the morning and evening. In case need
of natural call, his chain was released little bit and again he used to be
brought at the same place. He remained confined for about 22-23 days.
During this period, 3-4 persons continuously guarded them with arms. He
was made to realize arms by putting such arms in his hands. When police
reached persons guarding them managed to escape. At that time, accused
Vinod was in the custody of the police. They were taken to local PS and
then brought to Delhi. On 28.12.2007 he visited PS New Ashok Nagar
with PW6 where he saw accused Prem Chand and he identified him as the
same person who has escorted him on motorcycle along with other
associates.
27. PW6 Ravinder also deposed on the similar lines as deposed by PW5.
28. PW7 Poonam, wife of Ravinder deposed that she had received phone call
from him that he was going to Firozabad and will return within a day or
two. She deposed that on 14.09.2007 phone of Ravinder was found
switched off and on 15.09.2007 when she called, some person attended
the phone call who informed that Ravinder had been abducted by
criminals but he was rescued from them and that person asked her to
arrange Rs. 25,00,000/-. Thereafter she deposed about another ransom call
and the instructions given by the callers and also deposed about the
ransom letters received.
29. PW8 Ct. Ramesh was a witness to the arrest of the accused Prem Chand
@ Fauji in Court and proved his arrest memo and disclosure statement as
Ex.PW8/A and PW8/B respectively. PW9 Shri. G.N. Pandey, Ld. MM
proved the TIP proceedings of accused Prem Chand @ Fauji as Ex.
PW9/A to PW9/C. PW10 HC Mahavir was the duty officer who proved
the copy of the FIR as Ex.PW10/A.
30. PW11 Ashok, brother-in-law of victim Ajay deposed that he had received
the ransom call regarding which he informed PW-1 Mahipal. PW12
Davender was the elder brother Ajay who deposed about the abduction of
Ajay and Ravinder and the ransom call made by the caller. He further
deposed that the custody of victim Ajay was given to him vide memo
Ex.PW12/A.
31. PW13 HC Rambir Singh, the MHC (M) proved the entries made in
Register No. 19 as Ex.PW 13/A and PW13/B. PW14 SI Vinay Yadav
collected the calls details of mobile numbers 9871276142 of victim
Ravinder and 9971427767 of victim Ajay and of No. 9997436407 and
proved the same as Ex.Pw14/A to PW14/H5.
32. PW15 Insp. Ram Kishore took over investigation of this case on
19.09.2007 and he deposed that on 20.09.2007 he was handed over
ransom letters by Shintu and Mahipal and he examined the call details of
phone No. 9971427767 and 9997436407. He further deposed about the
investigation done by him, during the time when he reached Jaswant
Nagar to Agra and Firozabad. He further deposed about the arrest of
accused Vinod and recovery of two mobile phones from him and recovery
of both victims at his instance.
33. PW16 Ins. Arun Kumar was the main IO and he deposed that on
16.09.2007 he recorded the statement of Mahipal vide Ex.PW1/A on
which he made his endorsement Ex.PW16/A and further provided the
portrait of accused Ashok which is Ex.PW16/B. He further deposed the
investigation proceedings carried out by him. He further proved the
seizure memo of motorcycle of victim Ravinder as Ex.PW16/C, specimen
handwriting of accused Vinod as Ex.PW16/D1 and D2 and also proved
the arrest documents of accused Prem Chand @ Fauji on 15.12.2007 who
was produced in Karkardooma Courts by the police of PS Makhanpur,
District, Ferozabad. He further proved the FSL Report as Ex.C1 and
identified the case property.
34. PW17 Shyam Babu Verma the owner of motor cycle No. DL-8S AH-
4584 handed over by him to his cousin Ravinder which he took on
superdari under orders of the Court. He proved the superdarinama as
Ex.PW17/A and motorcycle as Ex.PW17/Article1. PW18 ASI Rajinder
Singh was the IO with regard to accused Ashok on 27.04.2009. he proved
his arrest memo as Ex.PW18/A.
35. PW19 SI Krishna Kumar Mishra from PS Matsena, District Feroxabad,
UP had joined the investigation team of SI Arun Kumar and Ins. Ram
Krishore along with other staff on 04.10.2007. He deposed about the
arrest of accused Vinod, he also deposed about the recovery of two
mobile phones from him and the recovery of both the victims. He further
identified the case property in the Court.
36. PW20 Sh. R.K. Singh, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd proved CDRs of
mobile No. 9971427767 and 9871276142 for the period from 01.09.2007
to 18.09.2007 for Delhi Circle and UP West Circle. He also proved
customer application form, copy of ID proof, cell ID of these numbers as
Ex. PW20/A to E. He also provided certificate required under Section
65B of India Evidence Act as Ex.PW20/E.
37. On the basis of incriminating evidence against accused persons their
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded Accused Ashok
Kumar denied the entire evidence against him and took the defence of
false implication. He stated that he was lodged in Tihar Jail along with
PW5 and used to watch TV along with him. Once he had beaten him in
jail since then PW5 was having enmity with him and had threatened to
take revenge.
38. Accused Prem Chand @ Fauji also denied entire evidence against him.
Accused Vinod also denied entire evidence against him stating that he
was lifted from near subzi Mandi. Victims were apprehended a day before
and he was falsely implicated in this case.
39. Accused Vinod led defence evidence and examined DW1 Munesh and
DW2 Sanjay and took defence to prove his false implication.
40. To decide the present case in hand we are of the view that it is important
to discuss the role of all the accused persons. Accused Ashok insisted
PW5 to come with him to Ferozabad to assure his wife that PW5 will help
him in establishing his business at Delhi. PW6 being friend of PW5 also
accompanied them to Ferozabad. As per their plan, accused Prem Chand
@ Fauzi and accused Vinod came there on the motorcycle and on the
point of a gun took PW6 on the motorcycle. Their eyes were covered with
cloth and hands were tied with a rope. Accused Vinod was apprehended
by the police on05.10.2007 from Sikora Mata Mandir, he made a
disclosure statement Ex. PW3/B, pursuant to the statement he got
recovered PW5 and PW6 from the forest nearby. As per FSL report
Ex.C1 ransom notes received by relatives of PW5 and PW6 were in
handwriting of accused Vinod.
41. On perusal of documents, testimonies of witnesses and submissions of
both the counsel, we are of the view that one of the main charges against
accused persons is for entering into a criminal conspiracy to abduct PW5
and PW6 for ransom. Section 120A of the Indian Penal Code defines
criminal conspiracy as under:
"120A. Definition of criminal conspiracy.--When two or more per-
sons agree to do, or cause to be done,--
(1) an illegal act, or
(2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement
is designated a criminal conspiracy: Provided that no agreement
except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a
criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done
by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.
Explanation.--It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the
ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that
object."
42. The ingredients of the Section 120B are also proved in the present case as:
a) There was an agreement between the persons who are alleged to
conspire.
b) The agreement was for an illegal activity.
c) The common intention of the accused persons was also proved.
d) All the accused have played there part in the act for achieving the
common purpose for their common benefits.
43. So far as the discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses are
concerned, we are of the view that it is not possible for a witness to
remember each and every fact of the incident and the law in this regard is
well settled by the Apex Court in Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v.
State of Gujarat: (1983) 3 SCC 217, observed that:
"...overmuch importance cannot be attached to minor
discrepancies, by and large a witness cannot be expected to
possess a photographic memory as if so happens that a witness is
overtaken by events. The powers of observation differ from person
to person. Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall
accurately the sequence of events which taken place in rapid
succession or in a short time span. The reliance on such small
discrepancies shall not cause injustice to the victims of such
grievance act..."
44. In Krishna Mochi and Ors. vs. State of Bihar: ( 2002 ) 6 SCC 81, the
Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"...If a whole body of the testimony is to be rejected because the
witness was evidently speaking an untruth in some aspect, it is to be
feared that administration of criminal justice would come to a dead
stop. Witnesses just cannot help in giving embroidery to a story,
however true in the main. Therefore, it has to be appraised in each
case as to what extent the evidence is worthy of acceptance, and
merely because in some respects the Court considers the same to be
insufficient for placing reliance on the testimony of a witness, it
does not necessarily follow as a matter of law that it must be
disregarded in all respect as well. The evidence has to be satisfied
with care. One hardly comes across a witness, whose evidence does
not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggeration,
embroidery or embellishments. An attempt has to be made to
separate the grain from the chaff..."
XXX
"It is matter of common experience that in recent times there has
been sharp decline of ethical values in public life even in developed
countries much less developing one, like ours, where the ratio of
decline is higher. Even in ordinary cases, witnesses are not inclined
to depose or their evidence is not found to be credible by courts for
manifold reasons. One of the reasons may be that they do not have
courage to depose against an accused because of threats to their
life, more so when the offenders are habitual criminals or high-ups
in the Government or close to powers, which may be political,
economic or other powers including muscle power. A witness may
not stand the test of cross-examination which may sometimes be
because he is a bucolic person and is not able to understand the
question put to him by the skilful cross-examiner and at times under
the stress of cross-examination, certain answers are snatched from
him. When a rustic or illiterate witness faces an astute lawyer, there
is bound to be imbalance and, therefore, minor discrepancies have
to be ignored. These days it is not difficult to gain over a witness by
money power or giving him any other allurance or giving out
threats to his life and/or property at the instance of persons, in/or
close to powers and muscle men or their associates. Such instances
are also not uncommon where a witness is not inclined to depose
because in the prevailing social structure he wants to remain
indifferent..."
45. Substantially similar view was taken by Hon'ble Apex Court in Kuria and
Anr. V. State of Rajasthan: (2012 )10 SCC 433, the Apex Court held:
"...This Court has repeatedly taken the view that the discrepancies
or improvements which do not materially affect the case of the
prosecution and are insignificant cannot be made the basis for
doubting the case of the prosecution. The courts may not
concentrate too much on such discrepancies or improvements. The
purpose is to primarily and clearly sift the chaff from the grain and
find out the truth from the testimony of the witnesses. Where it does
not affect the core of the prosecution case, such discrepancy should
not be attached undue significance. The normal course of human
conduct would be that while narrating a particular incident, there
may occur minor discrepancies. Such discrepancies may even in
law render credential to the depositions. The improvements or
variations must essentially relate to the material particulars of the
prosecution case. The alleged improvements and variations must be
shown with respect to material particulars of the case and the
occurrence. Every such improvement, not directly related to the
occurrence, is not a ground to doubt the testimony of a witness. The
credibility of a definite circumstance of the prosecution case cannot
be weakened with reference to such minor or insignificant
improvements. Reference in this regard can be made to the
judgments of this Court in Kathi Bharat Vajsur and Anr. v. State of
Gujarat: (2012) 5 SCC 724, Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary and
Anr. v. State of Maharashtra: (2000) 8 SCC 457, D.P. Chadha v.
Triyugi Narain Mishra and Ors.: (2001) 2 SCC 205, Sukhchain
Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors.: (2002) 5 SCC 100."
46. In Prabhat Singh vs. State: Crl. A. 926 and 1010/2009, 422 and
452/2010, 192/2011 and 230/2014, this Court observed:
"71.The principle that can be culled out from the aforesaid
decisions are that minor discrepancies and inconsistencies cannot
be given undue importance. The Court has to see whether
inconsistencies go to the root of the matter and affect the
truthfulness of the witnesses, while keeping in view that
discrepancies are inevitable in the statement of witnesses who
speak them after long lapse of time."
47. In this case, the first lead was provided by Sh.Mahipal, PW-1, who is the
real brother of one of the victims, Ajay Pal. PW-1 has testified that on
13.9.2007, around 11.00 a.m., a person had come to his shop and asked
for his brother Ajay. Upon asking, the said person has disclosed his name
as Ashok. As his brother, Ajay, was not in the shop, on his returning PW-
1 disclosed to him that a person, by the name of Ashok, was asking about
his whereabouts. After ten or fifteen minutes the same person returned to
the shop. PW-1 told his brother, Ajay, that he was the same person who
had introduced himself as Ashok. Thus, the presence and identity of
Ashok stands duly established as the person with whom the victim was
last seen. PW-1 has further testified that on 15.9.2007 a telephone call had
been received by his brother-in-law, Sh.Ashok Nagar, who informed him
that someone was making calls from the phone of one, Ravinder, and was
asking for ransom of Rs.25.00 lakhs for releasing PW-1's brother and
Ravinder (the second Victim). This witness has also testified that he was
informed with regard to the place of delivery at Kachora Ghat, Hanuman
Mandir, Etawah. This witness has further testified that he was cautioned
that in case Police was informed his brother and Ravinder would be
killed. PW-1 had contacted the family members of Ravinder, who also
informed him that they had also received a phone call concerning demand
of ransom of Rs.25.00 lakhs. This witness has also testified that he had
received a phone call at his PCO Phone No.64448803 from the phone of
Ravinder, which was provided by his brother-in-law. PW-1 had attended
the call. The caller had demanded Rs.25.00 lakhs in lieu of release of his
brother, Ajay Pal, and Ravinder. PW-1 had lodged a report with the Police
on 16.9.2007. He had narrated the entire facts to the Police. Statement of
PW-1 was recorded as PW-1/A. PW-1 had also provided description of
Ashok. PW-1 has also described in his testimony regarding phone calls
received by him. PW-1 has also testified that a ransom letter was received
at his village by his brother, Devender. The said ransom letter was
delivered to the Police, which was seized by the Police vide memo
No.PW-1/B, which bears the signature of PW-1 at point A. PW-1 has also
testified that a similar letter had been received by the family of Ravinder,
which was also seized by the Police vide memo Exhibit PW-1/C, which
also bears his signature at point B. The said letters were in the
handwriting of Ajay Pal and Ravinder. PW-1 has also testified that on
4.10.2007 Police had got recovered Ajay Pal and Ravidner from Itawah.
PW-1 has also identified the both the ransom letters in the Court.
48. PW-1 was cross-examined in detail. We find that although there were
some contradictions in his testimony but as far as the main issues were
concerned his testimony remained unshaken.
49. PW-2, Sandeep Singh, had deposed that Ravinder, one of the victims, is
his maternal uncle and he was residing with him since childhood at
Village Dagarpur. PW-2 was one of the persons, who was receiving
ransom calls regarding abduction of his uncle, Ravinder. PW-2 has
testified that he had received a call at his shop from Prem Chand @ Fauji,
who was demanding Rs.25.00 lakhs, which amount was to be delivered at
Kachora Ghat, Hanuman Temple. PW-2 was told that in case any
information was given to the Police then both (Ajay Pal and Ravinder)
would be killed. PW-2 had conveyed this message to his other family
members. His maternal aunt, Poonam Verma, also informed that she had
received a telephone call of ransom to the same effect. PW-2 has also
confirmed that on 16.9.2007 he along with Mahipal, brother of Ajay;
Ashok Kumar, brother-in-law of Mahipal; and some other neighbours
visited Police Station Ashok Nagar, and a report was made to the Police
on 16.9.2007.
50. PW-2 has further testified with regard to the letter delivered at his house
at Village Dagarpur. PW-2 has identified the letter to be in the
handwriting of his maternal uncle, Ravinder. On receipt of the letter, PW-
2 again contacted the Police. On 19.9.2007 PW-2 was made to hear the
voice of Ravinder, who had asked him to accept the demand of the caller
and arrange money from all possible means. His maternal aunt, Poonam
Verma, also talked to Ravinder. PW-2 also confirmed that a copy of the
ransom letter was handed over to the Police. PW-2 has also testified that a
similar letter had been received by the brother of victim, Ajay Pal.
51. The testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 are reliable for the reason that both
the witnesses have described in an identical manner in which the ransom
calls were made and the ransom letters were received. Both PW-1 and
PW-2 also testified the place where the ransom money was to be delivered
i.e. at Kachora Ghat, Hanuman Temple. PW-2 has also given a complete
description how the instructions of the caller were being followed and
how the Police was in constant touch. PW-2 has also given the dates and
time when the phone calls were being received.
52. The testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 stand fully corroborated by the
testimony of the victim, PW-5 Ajay Pal, whose testimony we have
discussed in paragraphs aforegoing and the testimony of and PW-6
Ravinder, who deposed on the similar lines as PW-5.
53. PW-5, Ajay Pal (victim) has testified the manner in which he had met
Ashok and how he had accompanied him as his presence was required to
assure the wife of Ashok that Ajay Pal was a well-wisher and would help
him in connection with business at Delhi, as his wife was not satisfied that
Ashok had any connection in Delhi and NOIDA. PW-5 had given a
complete description of how he, Ravinder and the appellant Ashok
travelled to Firozabad. He has also corroborated the testimony of PW-1
with regard to the factum of Ashok coming to the shop of PW-1 and
enquiring about PW-5. He has also testified how the three (he, Ravinder
and Ashok) proceeded for Firozabad by boarding a bus from Anand Vihar
at around 3.00 or 3.30 pm and a bus from Etaah. The victim has given a
complete description that how he and Ravinder were made to sit on the
motorcycle. One motorcycle was being driven by the appellant, Vinod,
and the other motorcycle was being driven by Prem chand @ Fauji. PW-5
and Ravinder were made to sit in between on the motorcycle. After eight
or nine kilometers 6-7 persons met them. The motorcycles were slowed
down and the ignition keys were taken off. One of the persons had put a
country made pistol on the temporal region of PW-5. PW-5 has further
testified that their eyes were tied with a cloth and hands were tied with a
rope. They were taken on foot for a distance. The way was rough and
having pits and heights at several places. All the belongings of PW-5 were
removed. PW-5 has also testified that he was informed that they were
handed over to them by Ashok in lieu of Rs.20,000/-, which was paid as
advance. This witness has also given a vivid description of the manner in
which he was made to write the ransom letter and the manner in which his
hands and eyes were tied. PW-5 identified the ransom letter which was
got written by him.
54. PW-5 also identified the appellant, Prem Chand @ Fauji, as the person,
who had escorted him on motorcycle along with other associates.
55. PW-6, Ravinder, has corroborated the evidence of PW-5. PW-6 has
testified and confirmed that a bus was boarded from Anand Vihar to Etaah
and from Etah again bus was taken for Tundla. PW-6 has also testified on
the lines of PW-5 with regard to the manner in which he and Ajay Pal
were made to sit in between on the motorcycle. PW-6 has identified
appellant, Vinod. PW-6 has also testified the manner in which a country
made pistol was put on his temporal rejoin; his hands were tied and eyes
were covered; the manner in which the persons were addressing each
other i.e. Chotta Fauji, Bada Fauji, Chela Ram, Prem Chand, etc. PW-6
has also identified the letter written by him demanding ransom money for
his release. PW-6 has also identified Prem Chand @ Fauji as the person,
who had taken them on the motorcycle.
56. PW-7, Poonam, wife of Ravinder Kumar, has also confirmed that she had
received a phone call from her husband, who informed her that he would
be going to Ferozabad and would return in one or two days. PW-7 had
tried to contact her husband but his phone was switched off. PW-7 has
testified that she was informed by the phone of Ravinder that he had been
abducted. PW-7 has confirmed that she was directed to arrange Rs.25.00
lakhs and also confirmed about the place, being Kachora Ghat, Hanuman
Temple, where the money was to be delivered. PW-7 confirmed the
manner in which she was threatened that in case Police was informed
Ravinder and Ajay would be killed. This witness also confirmed receipt of
ransom letter.
57. Based on the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-7, being close family
members of the victims, and based on the testimonies of PW-5 and PW-6,
being the victims, there is no room for doubt to reach the conclusion that
the victims, PW-5 and PW-6, were kidnapped for ransom. The victims
were put under fear that in case the ransom amount was not paid, they
would be killed. Similar threats were extended to the family members of
the victims. The victims were made to write ransom letters, which were
delivered to their family members. Their testimonies also leave no room
for doubt that constant phone calls were being made to their family
members, Rs.25.00 lakhs was being demanded towards ransom and the
family members were being threatened that in case Police was informed
both, Ajay and Ravinder, would be killed.
58. The witnesses have not made any contradictions with regard to the main
issues such as the amount of ransom, the place where the money was to be
delivered, the date when the Police was informed, the manner of phone
calls and the kind of language used. Similarly both the victims have given
an almost identical description about the manner in which they were
kidnapped, how they reached Firozabad and then Etah, their further
journey on motorcycle, and the manner they were kept with their hands
tied and eyes covered. The victims and their family members have also
given a consistent description of the ransom letters, which stand duly
identified by PW-5 and PW-6, respectively.
59. PW-3, HC Naresh, has testified the manner in which he along with SI
Arun Kumar, Inspector Ram Kishore and other Police Staff reached
Police Station Matsena, District Firozabad; the manner in which the
Police party was divided into two teams consisting of four members in
each team; the manner in which Vinod, one of the appellants, was over-
powered; about the mobile phones including LG Phone, which belonged
to Ravinder, which were recovered from him, and based on the disclosure
of Vinod, Ravinder and Ajay were recovered from the forest of Sikora.
PW-3 has also proved the arrest memo of Vinod and his personal search,
being Exhibit PW-3/C and PW-3/D, respectively. PW-3 has also
confirmed that the victims were found tied with ropes and their eyes were
also covered with cloth, an identical description given by the victim
themselves.
60. PW-3 has also identified the towel, two mobile phones and two rope
pieces made of jute, which were used to tie up the victims and the mobile
phones used to make ransom calls.
61. We may also notice at this stage that the accused persons had refused to
take part in the TIP.
62. Another witness, PW-11, Ashok also testified that that he had received a
phone call on 15.9.2007 after confirming that he was brother-in-law
(Behnoi) of Ajay, he was informed that Ajay and Ravinder had been
abducted and Rs.25.00 lakhs were demanded in lieu of their release.
63. After perusing the judgments referred to in the paragraphs aforegoing and
taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case
as well as the criminality of the offence of the appellants, we are of the
considered view that the decision rendered by the learned Trial Court in
the present case is just and proper and any interference therein by this
Court might cause injustice to the victims of the present case.
64. In view of the above, the appeals do not present special features
warranting any interference by this Court. The appeals are devoid of any
merit and are, accordingly, dismissed.
65. Copy of this judgment be sent to the Superintendent, Jail for information
of the appellants. Trial Court Record be sent back along with copy of the
judgment.
G. S. SISTANI, J.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.
th
25 FEBRUARY, 2016 gr/msr
