DEEPAK KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these appeals, common judgment and order on sentence dated 17.09.2009 of learned Additional Sessions Judge SC No.15/2009 has been challenged. The Appellants were convicted for committing offences punishable under Sections 364-A/34 IPC, and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, with fine.

(2.) THE prosecution case was that on 07.6.2002 Nitin Aggarwal (PW-2) lodged a complaint to ASI Phool Chand in P.S. Dilshad Garden regarding kidnapping of his father Jai Narayan Aggarwal. In this complaint, he mentioned that he resided with his parents at Model Town. His shop was in Sikriwalan, Delhi and their factory was at B 16/6, Jhilmil Industrial Area. He claimed, that, he had earlier informed the police of a call he had received on the factory telephone, on 31.12.2001, wherein the caller had threatened to kidnap him and had demanded Rs. 5,00,000/-. In the present instance, he stated that his father, Jai Narayan Aggarwal had left for the house from the factory in his Maruti Car (No. DL 6CD 2817) at around 09.30 PM. Since his father had not reached home even at 10.30 P.M., he had called him on his mobile phone, but the call was not answered. He called his father again, at about 12.30 A.M. but his call was answered by an unknown man who told him that his father was in their custody and their "Bhai " would talk to him in the morning. PW-2 further stated that the informer had warned him that in case the police was informed, the body of Lalaji (his father) would be found in the drain. He suspected that Crl.A. Nos.1315, 1383/2011, 1 & 2/2012 Page 3 his father had been kidnapped by some gang. On the basis of this statement, a case under Section 365 IPC was registered and the investigation was marked to SI Brij Mohan.

(3.) AFTER completion of investigation charge sheet for the offences punishable U/s 365/364A/34 IPC was filed against the accused before the Trial Court. Upon being charged, the accused claimed that they were not guilty. The Trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution – which included testimony of 25 public witnesses and the exhibits produced in the case, concluded that the Appellants were guilty as charged, and sentenced them, in the manner described above.