AMAR MISHRA Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of five connected appeals directed against a judgment and order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (ASJ) dated 27.02.2009 in S.C. No. 23/25.11.08. The appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 364A IPC read with 34 IPC. The appellant in this case (Satbir), besides Sections 364A/34 IPC, was convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act.

(2.) The prosecution case briefly is that one Sukh Dayal, (who eventually deposed as PW-2 during the trial and is referred to variously by as "the victim", was abducted from Punjabi Bagh and under threat of injury, forcibly taken initially to Loni and then to the Ajeet Nagar, Gandhi Nagar, in a car. It is alleged that the PW-2's abduction and his illegal detention against his will till he was rescued in the intervening night of 19/20.07.1994, was the result of a conspiracy between the appellants and two others, i.e. the two brothers Rajesh and Rocky Khanna. The prosecution alleged that the initial abduction took place on 16.07.1994 when PW-2 was forced into a car by several youths, who gheraoed him when he went near his car. It was alleged that four of them were in the car and two tailed them in a motorbike. The prosecution alleged that initially PW-2 was detained in the house of PW-6, Khem Chand under the pretext that he was interested in purchasing the latter's property. Upon PW-6 becoming suspicious of the version given by the abductors, they took-away PW-2 and confined him in Ajeet Nagar, Gandhi Nagar. The prosecution also alleged that in the meanwhile, on 17.07.1994, PW-2's brother, PW-1 complained to the authorities resulting in an FIR. His statement was recorded as Ex. PW-1/A. It was stated that PW-1 received ransom calls. The prosecution alleged that the telephone calls of PW-1 were monitored in order to secure leads. Eventually, the prosecution was tipped-off about the likelihood of two accused Anil and Rajender @ Pappu reaching the spot. It was alleged that this happened late night on 19.07.1994. The police party acting on this tip-off, ambushed Amar Mishra and Rajender @ Pappu, who were riding a motorcycle. Apparently, the shooting incident took place and eventually the two accused were overpowered. Upon interrogation by the police, the two of them made Disclosure Statements which led to recoveries of articles. More crucially, their statements led the police party to the place where PW-2 was confined. He was rescued and his statement, Ex. PW-2/A was recorded. The prosecution alleged that the appellant Satbir was also nabbed at the spot. It was further alleged that the statements of accused led to the arrest of the others involved in the case, i.e. Mukesh, Vishal, Rajesh Khanna and Rocky Khanna. The prosecution had alleged that Satbir was armed with a rifle when he was arrested; Vishal and Mukesh were also keeping company with PW-2.

(3.) After arresting the accused, recording their Disclosure Statements and proceeding to recover articles, the prosecution completed its investigation. In the course of the proceedings, the prosecution also claimed to have seized seven audio cassettes containing tape recordings of conversations between the abductors and PW-1. These tapes were handed-over on 26.07.1994. A final report implicating all the accused were filed. They were charged with offences detailed in the beginning of the judgment. They denied guilt and claimed trial.