RAFIQ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT appeal is directed against a judgment of conviction dated 17th december, 2005 under Sections 363/364a read with Section 120b IPC and order of sentence dated 17th December, 2005 awarding life imprisonment and fine of rs. 5,000/- each and SI for one year on failing to pay the amount of fine.

(2.) MATERIAL facts, stated briefly, leading to prosecution of appellants and two others are that on 14th September, 2001 about 7. 30 pm one Mohd. Izhar aged about six years and ten months went missing which was discovered by his parents after about an hour. A search for him by all concerned did not yield any result. Mohd. Ikrar, father of missing child eventually reported the matter to the police. Initially a DD No. 40 B (Ext. PW 9/a) was recorded on 15th september, 2001. On the following day i. e. 16th September, 2001 on child remaining untraced, a FIR under Section 363 IPC vide ex. PW 3/a was registered at PS Gokalpuri, delhi. Initially, on 15th September, 2001 a blank call was received at the house of the child on telephone No. 2263029. Later, it was followed by a ransom call for Rs. 5 lacs which was subsequently brought down to rs. 3 lacs on father of child pleading his inability to satisfy the ransom demand of rs. 5 lacs. The factum of receiving ransom calls on his telephone was brought by the father of the child to the notice of trie police. The telephone of Mohd. Ikrar was placed under surveillance by the police. Mohd. Ikrar was, in terms of the ransom call received on 17th September, 2001, asked to reach on 18th September, 2001 at an appointed place in Gajrola, U. P. at a given time with ransom money for payment thereof in return of release of the kidnapped child. Mohd. Ikrar accompanied by a raiding party, comprising police officials, acted accordingly. Nobody, however turned up from the side of kidnapper/s. A similar ransom call was received by Mohd. Ikrar on his telephone on 19th September, 2001 morning with instructions to reach a different place in Gajrola at the given time, for delivery of ransom money which he complied with in the same manner as on previous occasion but again there was no positive development. Yet again on 20th september, 2001 pursuant to another phone call, Mohd. Ikrar and the police party reached the appointed place at the given time where a person was to get in touch with Mohd. Ikrar to take him to the kidnapper/s for payment of ransom money before release of his child from captivity. A person did approach Mohd. Ikrar but somehow seeing that person, he (Ikrar) got frightened and started crying which attracted the attention of the police officials, and they emerged from hiding in the fields. On noticing the presence of the police officials in the nearby fields the person who was to take Mohd. Ikrar to the kidnapper/s took to heels and disappeared in sugarcane fields. The police officials resorted to combing operation with a view to apprehend that person and in the process they heard the cries of a child which led them to a garden where they came across with the kidnapped child The child was thus recovered.

(3.) OH questioning the child regarding his kidnapper/s Izhar disclosed the name of appellant Rafiq as the one who had taken him along and handed over to his co-appellant Hasmukh @ Hasmat who in turn took him away to a village in Gajrola where he wa. s kept in a house. The police on the basis of lead provided by the child located the particular house in the village which happened to be that of one Tehsin, who, on a joint trial with the appellants, stands acquitted by the learned trial court. On 21st September, 2001 on a visit with the police to the house of appellant Rafiq, the child noticed a photograph of appellant hasmukh @ Hasmat lying there and he was able to identify him in that photograph as the one who had taken over his custody from co-appellant Rafiq after his kidnapping. Both the appellants as well as Tehsin and one Akhtar were eventually arrested.