SURENDER KUMAR ALIAS RAJA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With reference to the testimony of Ram Chander PW-1, Mukesh PW-2 and Raj Kumar PW-3, the learned trial Judge has returned a finding that the prosecution has successfully established that the appellant has committed the offence punishable under Section 364-A IPC. For the offence held committed by the appellant, he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine in sum of Rs. 1000/-; in default of payment of fine it has been directed that the appellant shall undergo RI for further six months.

(2.) Conceding that there is no blemish in the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2, learned Counsel for the appellant points out a serious procedural infirmity during conduct of trial which has considerable bearing on the testimony of Raj Kumar PW-3 and the commission of the offence punishable under Section 364-A IPC.

(3.) To appreciate the submissions urged at the hearing of the appeal by Sh.Rajesh Mahajan learned Amicus Curie who has been nominated by the Delhi High Court Legal Service Committee to argue the appeal on behalf of the appellant, it may be noted that Ram Chander PW-1 who is the father of the child kidnapped; namely Mukesh PW-2, while deposing in Court has not uttered any word of any threat conveyed to him pertaining to the kidnapped child of causing death or bodily injury to the kidnapped child. There is no reference in the testimony of Ram Chander of any conduct of the accused where from an apprehension would arise in the mind of Ram Chander that if ransom was not paid, his child would be hurt or killed. We note that Ram Chander has simply stated that when he received a call from the appellant he was told to bring money. He categorically stated that no specific amount to be paid as ransom was conveyed to him.