PRAMOD Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pramod challenges the order of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No.48/2001 whereby the learned Judge vide judgment dated 5.10.2001 has held the appellant guilty under Section 364A IPC and further by his order dated 11.10.2001 sentencing the appellant to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further RI for one month. The facts as have been noted by the Additional District and Sessions Judge is as under:-

(2.) The prosecution in order to establish the case examined as many as nine witnesses. Of these PW 1 is Kimti Lal. Kimti Lal states that he was living at NA-87, Vishnu Garden, Delhi and was working as packer. On 25.12.2000 he had let out a room on the third floor of his house to the accused Pramod. On that day while witness was having breakfast, Pramod came and took the child Micky who was seven months old from his wife Rajni in order to feed him some biscuits. The witness at 11.30 a.m. went to his office, but returned within ten minutes and found that Micky was not at home. He searched for the accused and his son at the kiryana shops near the house and also went to the house of the uncle of the accused, but did not find him there. In the meantime his wife Rajni received telephone call from Pramod demanding a sum of Rs. One lakh for the release of his son Micky from the New Delhi Railway Station. His wife conveyed this information to the cousin of Kimti Lal, Pradeep. Upon which Pradeep informed the PCR. Police came to the house and recorded the statement of Kimti Lal, Ex.PW1/A. The witness goes on to say that he accompanied the Police to the railway station where they searched for the child. At about 7.30 p.m. accused was apprehended along with child Micky from a park between parking bus terminal Ajmeri Gate side. In cross-examination, it was sought to be put to the witness that the accused had received Rs. fifty thousand as compensation from his employee Sardar Sonu of Gali No.7, Vishnu Garden, Delhi. But this suggestion was denied by the witness. He also denied the suggestion that the amount was kept with him which was not being returned to the accused and, on this account the accused has been falsely implicated in this case.

(3.) The next witness is PW-2 Smt. Rajni who states that on 25.12.2000 at about 11.00 a.m. accused Pramod came and took the child Micky from her for feeding him biscuits. Witness had told Pramod to return the child soon as he was yet to be given a bath. The accused did not returned till 12 noon. Search was in progress when she received a telephone call from the accused demanding ransom of Rs. One lakh for the release of Micky. This information was given to Pradeep who informed the PCR and Police came to the house. Another phone call was received at 2.30 p.m. repeating the same demand. The witness goes on to say that at 9.00 p.m. her husband brought the child home, after he was recovered from the accused from New Delhi Railway Station. This witness was cross-examined to the effect that a sum of Rs. fifty thousand which was received as compensation by the accused was entrusted to them which was not returned and, therefore, a false case has been filed against the accused. The other witnesses are those of procedure except for PW-6 who coroborates the statement of PW-1 and PW-2.