MOHD SOHRAB Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Appeal No. 871/2001 and Criminal Appeal No. 313/2002 seek to challenge the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judger, Delhi in Sessions case No. 62/99 whereby the learned Judge by his judgment and order dated 26th April, 2001 has held the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 364-A/34 IPC and further by order dated 27th April, 2001 has sentenced the appellant to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default further imprisonment for six months for the offence under Sections 364-A/34 IPC.

(2.) The brief facts of the case as have been noted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are as under:- On 1.1.99 at about 1.00 pm, the accused Mohd. Shorab went to the house of the complainant at Nanglo and took away the child Love Preet son of Mr. Jasbir Singh from their house and went alongwith the child to Bihar. He kept the child confined in the house of accused Mohd. Abbas. Thereafter, he made a telephone call to one of the relations of Jasbir Singh and the sister of Jasbir Singh attended the telephone call, who recognized the voice of the caller to be that of Mohd.Shorab. The accused told her that they should bring Rs.1,10,000/- for release of the child at the Old Delhi Railway Station. The complainant informed the police and went to Old Delhi Railway Station. The police alongwith the complainant went to Bihar and recovered the child from Bihar.

(3.) The prosecution in order to establish its case examined as many as 8 witnesses of whom PW 1, Jasbir Singh is the father of the kidnapped child. He deposed to the effect that Lovepreet is his son. He was about four years on the date of incident and that on 01.01.1999, when he returned home from his duty at about 10.p.m, he was told by his wife that their son was missing. His wife used to run a dry cleaning shop. He was TSR driver. Somebody had already informed the PCR and search for missing child was on. On 03.01.1999 they received a telephone call at telephone No. 5482768 at the house of his brother-in-law Mr. Tarwem in the neighbourhood. His sister Jasvinder Kaur had answered the call from purported Mohd. Aslam. She recognized the voice of the caller to be that of Mohd. Sharaf who was an ex. employee at the cooler factory. The caller, who identified himself as Mohd. Aslam, demanded a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- for the release of the child stated to be in Bihar and the money was to be delivered at the Old Delhi Railway station. This information was passed on to the police who alongwith the witness went to the railway station on 03.01.1999 in the evening but did not find Mohd. Saraf or the child. On 05.01.1999, the witness alongwith Delhi police went to Bonsi village, Begpur, Bihar and then to the house of Mohd. Saraf who was found present there. He was apprehended and disclosed that the child was kept at Naya Gaon about one and a half kilometer from there and that the child was with his brother- in -law Mohd. Abbas . The witness alongwith police party and Mohd. Sharaf reached the house of Mohd. Abbas and recovered the child. The child was taken into custody. Abbas was apprehended later. In cross- examination it was elicited from this witness that son was missing since 01-01-1999 and the missing report was lodged with the police at about 2 P.M. on that date. His neighbour Satinvder Singh had lodged the complaint. It was also elicited that the accused had worked as servant for 4/5 years when the witness was running a cooler factory. The witness denied the suggestion that Rs. 40,000/- were due to the accused and it is on this account that the accused has been falsely implicated in this case. It was also stated that the address of Shorab was known to the witness. The witness also stated that the police party and he left Delhi on a Tata sumo on 5-1-1999 and reached Bihar, District Banka at about 12 in the midnight on 8.1.99 and on the following day accused Shorab was apprehended from his village and from there local police was taken. It was also elicited by this witness that a telephonic call for ransom was received at the house of Tarsem whose number was not known to him. It was Jasvinder Kaur who answered the call when the ransom demand was made. He denied having made any statement to the police that he answered the phone call when ransom was demanded. PW2 is Smt. Satwent Kaur who corroborated PW1 to the effect that on 03.01.1999 a report was lodged by her husband at the police station and the child was recovered from Bihar where her husband had gone with the police party. PW3 Tarsem stated that PW1 is his brother- in -law and resides at the distance of 10 minutes walk from the house of this witness and his telephone No. is 5482768 and that on 01-01-1999 Mohd. Sohrab who is present in the court came to his house at about 12.00-12.30 p.m. and asked him to give his telephone number as Sohrab wanted to talk to Jasbir. Mohd. Sohrab was known to the witness earlier. The witness gave telephone number to Mohd. Sohrab and left. In cross-examination, the witness stated that he did not talk to the caller who demanded ransom but a telephonic call was received at their house and that Mohd. Sohrab had come to his house earlier at about noon time. PW4 , constable Sukhbir Singh recorded the message of the missing child. PW5 Duty Officer, recorded the FIR. PW6 is the Investigating officer who narrates as to the steps taken during investigation and how Jasbir Singh suspected the role of Sohrab and provided the address of Sohrab and also the raid conducted by him to apprehend the accused person and recover the child . In cross-examination the investigating Officer stated that Jasbir had told him that he had received a call from the caller and accordingly investigation proceeded in that direction. He further stated that he had not recorded the statement of Jasvinder Kaur, sister of the complainant under Section 161 as Jasbir had not disclosed as to Jasvinder Kaur having received the telephone call. In the statement under Section 313 the accused Mohd. Sohrab stated that he has been falsely implicated on account of money due to him from Jasbir on account of wages during his employment at the cooler factory and since demand was made for such payment he has been falsely implicated. The trial court on the basis of the aforesaid material on record reached the conclusion that offence under Section 364-A/34 stands established against the accused. Counsel for the accused person states that the case does not fall within the ambit of Section 364-A/34 and at the highest would be a case under Section 361 IPC punishable under Section 363 IPC as also Section 365 IPC. It is contended by the counsel that from the material on record it cannot be said that a demand for ransom was made for the release of the child. It is contended that the improvement in the prosecution case in the court to the effect that Jasbinder Kaur received a ransom call has not been established. On the contrary the case of the prosecution was that Jasbir received ransom call. In the absence of demand of Ransom the offence under Section 364 -A/34 is not complete. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends that the offence is complete in as much as it has been elicited from Jasbir in the cross-examination that ransom call was received by Jasvinder Kaur. Having elicited information from the witness the same can be read in evidence against him, in which case, the demand of ransom stands established.