SURENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PW1 wrote a criminal complaint (Ext. Ka-1) to S.O., police station, Kashipur on 17.11.1990, enumerating the facts contained therein, that on 17.11.1990, his wife Lavleen Gauriya went to marketing in the evening alongwith other family members in a car, which was being driven by Madan Singh. Domestic help Amar Singh also accompanied them. Madan Singh was employed to take care of little child Simrandeep, who was aged about 11/2 years. On the self same day, i.e., 17.11.1990, at 06:00 P.M., when informant's wife was present in the shop of Mayfair Tailor, informant's wife called Amar Singh. She also asked the driver Madan Singh to make payment to Chhabra Enterprises. After sometime, when Madan Singh came back after making payment to Chhabra Enterprises, informant's wife inquired about the child from him. The driver replied hat he handed over the child to Amar Singh (domestic help) and went to make payment to Chhabra Enterprises. Informant's wife made a frantic search for the child, but to no avail. She rang the informant up in the factory to inform that the child alongwith servant was missing. In the meanwhile, PW1 met Surjeet Singh, motor mechanic and Subhash Chandra, who informed PW1 that Amar Singh and Surendra Singh, who was employed as domestic help earlier and later on removed from service, were found carrying Simrandeep. They saw Amar Singh and Surendra Singh at 06:30 P.M. near Bazpur Railway crossing. Informant's younger brother Sukhbir Singh met PW1 at 08:00 P.M. in the market and informed PW1 that somebody made a phone call at PW1's residence asking for a ransom of Rs. 5,00,000/-. PW1 wrote the complaint narrating the whole incident and prayed that life of his son be saved.

(2.) Chik FIR (Ext. ka-7) was lodged on the basis of the aforesaid complaint on 17.11.1990, at 08:30 P.M., at police station, Kashipur. The incident allegedly took place on the selfsame day at 06:00 P.M. There appears to be no delay in lodging the FIR. After investigation of the case, chargesheet was submitted against accused persons Amar Singh, Surendra Singh (appellant), Degar Singh, Yogesh Kumar, Begraj Singh and Govinda for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 364 IPC. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. When the trial began and prosecution opened it's case, charge for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 386 IPC was framed against accused Amar Singh and Surendra Singh. Accused Degar Singh, Yogesh Kuamr, Begraj Singh and Govinda were charged for the offences punishable under Section 364 IPC and Section 386 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them and claimed trial.

(3.) PW1 Jasveer Singh, PW2 Smt. Lavleen Kaur, PW3 Subhash Chandra, PW4 Sukhwinder Singh, PW5 Luxmi Narayan Gupta, PW6 Lalit Mohan Vishwakarma, PW7 R.P Purohit and PW8 B.P. Singh were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in reply to which they said that they were falsely implicated in the case. No evidence was given in defence. The case of all the accused persons but for accused Surendra Singh and Govinda was separated. After considering the evidence on record, learned Addl. Sessions Judge / III F.T.C., Nainital, vide judgment and order dated 11.07.2003, exonerated accused Govinda of the charges framed against him.