PREETI VERMA Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With reference to the testimony of Shama Parveen PW-3, the mother of Bilal as also the testimony of Bilal PW-4, learned counsel for the appellant concedes that there is hardly any scope to argue that the prosecution has not proved that the appellant was employed as a maid servant by Shama Parveen and that the appellant went missing with the minor son Bilal of Shama Parveen. Mohd.Farukh PW-5 is the witness who saw the appellant walk away with Bilal in the afternoon of 27.3.2002, the day when Bilal was found missing from his house and the appellant was also missing.

(2.) Not only that, the testimony of SI R.K.Borse PW-6 Crl. A.No.1024/2008 Page 1 of 3 proves that Bilal was recovered from the possession of the appellant from Mumbai.

(3.) The only issue which we need to discuss and decide is whether an essential ingredient of Section 364-A IPC, as held by a Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court in the decision Rafiq & Anr. vs. State has been established.,2008 4 JCC 2961