DEVENDER KUMAR YADAV Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of three connected appeals which challenge the judgment dated 13.04.2011 passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge (Rohini) by which the appellants were convicted of the offence under section 363/364A, IPC read with section 120-B, IPC. By order dated 26.04.2011, they were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, with fine.

(2.) THE prosecution case was that on 14.01.2005, complainant Mohd. Irshad complained to the police that his son, Imran (aged 5) was missing and had been kidnapped. Imran had gone out to play the previous day but did not return. He stated that despite search, Imran could not be found. An FIR under Section 363, IPC was registered. On 31.01.2005, Mohd. Irshad informed the police that he had received ransom calls on his residential telephone as well as his cell phone demanding Rs. 3 lakhs for the release of his son. His statement was recorded and Section 364-A, IPC was added in the FIR. The investigation was entrusted to SI C.L. Meena. The IO obtained the call details. The police alleged that ransom calls were made from some STD booths in Bhadrauli and Jarar in Agra district of UP. On 05.02.2005, ransom calls were received again by Mohd. Irshad from different telephone numbers. These calls emanated from STD booths in Bhadrauli and Jarar in Agra district. A special team was formed under the supervision of SI Meena and ASI Azad Mohd. Call details of these were obtained from the BSNL office, Baha. On scrutiny of call details, it was noticed that the caller(s) who made the ransom call, used a particular contact mobile telephone number at Delhi. The negotiations took place between the complainant and the kidnappers for payment of ransom money and the release of Imran. The conversation was heard from a parallel line. From the conversation, it appeared that telephone calls were being made from the area near Shikohabad, District Ferozabad. Raj Kumar @ Puppy was the main suspect in the kidnapping. He and his brother-in-law Jagbir Singh were noticed near the house of Mohd. Irshad on the day of the incident. A police team led by SI C.L. Meena were sent to district Firozabad. The assistance of local police was also taken. On 27/28.02.2005, local police of Shikohabad recovered the kidnapped child from the accused Vijay @ Vijender and Jagbir Singh. Separate cases bearing FIR No. 78/05 and FIR No. 79/05, 80/05 under section 307, IPC and under the section 25/27 of the Arms Act were respectively registered against Vijay and Jagbir for firing at the police party, and on account of recovery of arms and ammunition from them. The STD booths from where the calls were made by the kidnappers were located. One such STD booth owner Ajay Yadav (PW-12) stated that Jagbir @ Tony, Parikshit, Mukesh @ Chinuva, Raj Kumar @ Puppy, Shyam Singh were making calls from his booth since the last one and a half months to Delhi and other places. Ajay Yadav also disclosed that Shyam usually talked to his brother Devender using his STD booth phone, and Devender also used to call at his STD number for talking to Shyam. The child, who after recovery was with P.S. Shikohabad was released to the custody of his father Mohd Irshad. Statement of Imran was recorded where he mentioned that Puppy had taken him from the field and handed him over to Jagbir, who took him in a bus to Devender's helmet factory, from where Jagbir took him to Agra in a bus, and later to his village where he was held captive by Jagbir with the help of his associates Shyam, Parikshit, Mukesh and Vijay. Devender was arrested on 1.03.2005. Mobile bearing No. 9213129702 was recovered from him. Jagbir and Vijay, who had been arrested by the Shikohabad Police were arrested in this case too. Devender made a disclosure statement in which he pointed out the location of the STD booths at Bhadrauli, Farera and Jarar. All the STD booth attendants identified accused Devender and named two others, i.e Raj Kumar @ Puppy and Parikshit. Jagbir pointed out the place where Raj Kumar handed over Imran to him. The call details of Mohd Irshad's phone, (landline and mobile), were procured for the period 01.01.2005 to 31.03.2001. Statement of Imran was recorded under section 164, CrPC.

(3.) THE Trial Court relied upon the testimonies of PW-3 Imran (victim) and PW-19 Inspector R.K. Singh, who, as per the prosecution story, led the police party which recovered the child from the custody of appellants Vijay and Jagbir, and PW-2 Mohd. Irshad, who testified as to the ransom calls. These primarily were the basis for conviction of Vijay and Jagbir. The appellant Devender's conviction was based mainly on PW-3 Imran's deposition. For the offence of criminal conspiracy under section 120-B, IPC the Trial Court, while noting that the agreement between conspirators cannot generally be proved by direct evidence and can only be inferred, held that the circumstances proved against the accused unerringly pointed to their collaboration with each other for the various acts done in furtherance of the conspiracy.