SARTAJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant Sartaj @ Sonu is convicted for offence punishable under Sections 363/364A IPC for kidnapping a three year old minor child by the impugned judgment dated April 29. 2014 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5000/ - for offence punishable under Section 364A IPC and rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with fine of Rs. 1000/ - for offence punishable under Section 363 IPC vide the order dated April 30, 2014. Learned counsel for the appellant assails the judgment on the ground that the version of Abida and Nazma cannot be relied upon as though the prosecution case is that the child was recovered from the residence of Abida. however neither Abida nor Na/ma have signed the recovery memo. Further the signatures of Sartaj on recovery memo do not tally with his signatures on the charge and his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The prosecution has not been able to prove that the victim child was recovered at the instance of Sartaj. Though Iktiyar says that 5 calls were received, however in only one call it is alleged that there was a demand for ransom. Even the demand for ransom does not bring the offence allegedly committed by Sartaj in the four corners of offence punishable under Section 364A IPC. The certificates under Section 65B exhibited as Ex. PW -11/E and Ex. PW -12/C are not in conformity with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.

(2.) SARTAJ has led defence evidence by examining Shamim Bano and Rani his mother and sister respectively, both of whom have deposed that Abida was not having good relations with the family of Sartaj and has thus falsely implicated Sartaj. In his explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Sartaj has claimed innocence, false implication and that he has been implicated at the instance of Iktiyar in connivance with his brother -in -law Sakoor who is a Police informer. According to Sartaj Iktiyar was having previous enmity with his sister Rani as they were distant relatives residing in the neighbourhood and did not have cordial relations.

(3.) SEARCH was carried out for the missing child when on August 27, 2011 at around 4/4.15 PM Iktiyar received a call and the caller informed him that his daughter Isha was with him. He immediately reported the detail of the calls to the I.O. in the Police station. Again on the same day at 6.03 PM he received another call wherein the person stated that he was bringing his daughter to his house. This was followed by a third call at 8.00/8.15 PM wherein the caller informed that while he was coming to his house along with his daughter they have been caught by some other person and he has been given severe beatings. The caller further informed that those persons were demanding a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/ -. Iktiyar expressed his inability to pay the said amount on which the caller stated that neighbour of Iktiayar was with him and he knew that Iktiyar had the capacity to pay the money. On the same day at about 10.02 PM Iktiyar received the fourth call wherein the caller demanded money on which Iktiyar stated that he was ready to pay Rs. 40.000/ - to Rs. 50,000/ -. The caller refused to accept the amount and stated that he would call the next day at about 2.00 PM. On August 28, 2011 when Iktiyar was in Police station for the investigation of this case he received a call at 1.00 PM from the caller demanding Rs. 1,25,000/ - on which Iktiyar told him that the amount was ready and asked him the place of delivery. The caller asked Iktiyar to send his wife with the money and the place would be disclosed later. Thereafter no calls were received.