RAJESH ALIAS RAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant stands convicted in S.C.No.287 of 2002 for offences under Sections 363 and 364A I.P.C., for which he stands sentenced to undergo five years rigourous imprisonment together with a fine of Rs.2,000/- carrying a default sentence for the former offence and to undergo imprisonment for life together with a fine of Rs.3,000/- carrying a default sentence for the later offence. THE sentences are directed to run concurrently. Hence he is before this court in this appeal. Heard Mr.A.S.Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.N.R.Elango, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that on 20.3.2001 at about 12.15 p.m. the accused kidnapped a male child Kirankumar aged about 2 1/2 years from his father/P.W.1 and in the course of the same transaction demanded a ransom of Rs.50,000/- from P.W.1 for release of the child and therefore punishable for the offences referred to earlier. In all, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 13 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.11 and M.Os.1 to 3. THE defence neither brought in any oral nor documentary evidence. P.W.1 is the father of the child, who had been kidnapped. P.W.1 was having a laboratory as well as Fast Food shop in the ground floor of the premises, in which he is living in the upstairs. THE accused responded to his advertisement and got appointed as a cook in the Fast Food Restaurant. THE accused was residing in a small portion behind his house itself. THE accused gained the confidence of P.W.1 by turning out good work. On 17.3.2001, stating that his mother is ailing and therefore he must go to Madurai, by taking a sum of Rs.7,000/- he left the place. He came back at 9.00 a.m. on 20.3.2001 and started working. At about 12 noon he took Kirankumar stating that he would get him some biscuits. THE accused and the child did not return. THErefore P.W.1 and his other employees started searching. Till 5.30 p.m. on that day, neither the child nor the accused could be located. At 6.00 p.m. P.W.1 gave a complaint to the police, which is Ex.P.1. On 2.4.2001 at 11.00 a.m. the accused telephoned to P.W.1 and stating that the child is with him, disconnected the telephone. At 11.00 p.m. on that day, the accused telephoned again and wanted a sum of Rs.50,000/- to meet his urgent needs and assured to hand over the child, if payment is made. THE accused promised to disclose the place where the money is to be brought. At 1.00 p.m. on 7.4.2001 the accused telephoned once again and told P.W.1 that he must send the money through driver Nagaraj and send him in an Ambulance Van to the Fort at Vellore and the money must reach him between 5.00 to 6.00 p.m. on that day. Immediately P.W.1 passed on that information to the police. Money was taken by Nagaraj and police followed him secretly. Police informed him that the accused had been arrested. It appears that when the police examined the accused, he told them that he left the child near the Museum in the Tajmahal, Agra. THE Commissioner of Police, Union Territory of Delhi was informed and P.W.1 flew to Delhi. Reaching the police out post at Taj Mahal,Agra, they enquired and the police officer sent for P.W.10, the photographer-cum- guide. P.W.1 then found that his child was with him. P.W.1 brought the child back to Chennai produced it in court and then took custody of the child.

(3.) IN the light of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side, we went through the entire records. P.W.1 is the father of the male child by name Kirankumar, who was aged 2 1/2 years. There is not only the primary evidence of P.W.1 that the accused was employed under him but there is also overwhelming evidence of the other witnesses, who speak about the fact that the accused was employed under P.W.1. IN other words, the prosecution definitely established that the accused was employed under P.W.1. P.W.1 would state that the accused had gained his trust and confidence by showing a good turn over in the work. The evidence shows that the accused left on 17.3.2001 taking a sum of Rs.7,000/- from P.W.1 to see his ailing mother and returned on 20.3.2001. The evidence also shows that feeling annoyed that he had not brought anything for the child from Madurai, the accused telling P.W.1 that he will take the child to a near by shop to get biscuits for him, took him out. Thereafter the child and the accused were not to be seen at all. There is consistent and cogent evidence in this case that the accused was seen going with the child around noon time on 20.3.2001 and thereafter the child was not to be seen at all. Thereafter the accused had made more than a couple of telephone calls and in piecemeal spread over a few days he informed P.W.1 that the child was in his custody that he wanted a sum of Rs.50,000/- to meet his urgent need that the money should be brought before 6.00 p.m. on 7.4.2001 near the Fort at Vellore and that driver Nagaraj in the Ambulance must bring the money. P.W.1 had passed on this information to the police, who had acted quickly to form a special team and making the necessary arrangements to lay the trap. The police team followed Nagaraj and when the accused went to see the Nagaraj at 6.00 p.m, the police swooped on him and caught him. The sequence of events as spoken to by the witnesses and police, unerringly establishes the involvement of the accused in kidnapping the child and making a demand for ransom. A disclosure is made by the accused at the time of his arrest that he had abandoned the child at Taj Mahal, Agra on 31.3.2001 and again the police moved into action very quickly by contacting higher police officials at Agra and ultimately they got the child from Taj Mahal. P.W.9 is the Sub INspector of Police, Law and Order,Agra, who had given a graphic account of how he came to locate the abandoned child first on 31.3.2001 sleeping in the bench at Taj Mahal Complex handing over custody of the child to P.W.9 under his superior's orders and then handing over custody of the child to P.W.1 and P.W.11, the Sub INspector of Police when they reached Agra. Therefore we have no doubt at all that the prosecution by placing the relevant material evidence established all aspects of their case. It may be noticed here that P.W.9 had given evidence that on he finding the abandoned child at 7.00 p.m. on 31.3.2001 he found the child having passed stools in the Trouser itself. IN addition to that he found that the child was having Diarrhea. He also found some blackened wounds on his body. P.W.10 would also state that when the Childs condition was awfully bad.