PRITAM KUMAR Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Appeal No.376 of 2004 seeks to challenge judgment and order of Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi in Sessions Case No.43 of 1999, arising out of F.I.R. No.141 of 1999, registered at Police Station Inder Puri, whereby the learned judge vide her judgment dated 30.1.2004 has held the appellant, Pritam Kumar, guilty for offence under Sections 364-A and 302 IPC. Further vide her order dated 5.2.2004, has sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment together with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for three months under Section 302 IPC. The appellant was further sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for one month under Section 364-A IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. However, the appellant was awarded the benefit of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) Brief facts of the case as have been noted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the judgment under challenge are as under :-

(3.) The prosecution in order to establish its case examined as many as 18 witnesses. Of these, the most material one's are PW-5, Lal Babu, father of the deceased; PW-6, Lalita, mother of the deceased; PW-11, Surender, neighbour, as also the medical evidence and scientific evidence. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that there are considerable contradictions in the statement of PW-5, Lal Babu, whose statement ought not to be relied upon. He submits that Lal Babu has grossly improved his case in court which clearly shows that Lal Babu would go to any length to have the appellant convicted. He compares the statement of PW-5, Lal Babu, with statement of PW-6, Lalita, mother of the deceased, to show that Lal Babu's statement is in contradiction with that of Lalita inasmuch as after having received the ransom letter, both husband and wife, on the following morning placed Rs.3,000/- at the appointed place and saw the appellant coming to take it. According to Lal Babu, he apprehended the accused at the Hanuman Mandir itself and handed him over to the police along with letter whereas Lalita states that the accused ran away after seeing them and that both came back home and thereafter her husband Lal Babu went to inform the police. Learned counsel submits that this contradiction goes to the root of the matter which makes the prosecution's case doubtful.