Full Text
JUDGMENT
PREM CHAND @ FAUZI ...Appellant
Through: Mr.Neeraj Bhardwaj, Advocate
Through: Mi-.Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP for the State
^CORAM: f HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL G. S. SISTANI, J.
For judgment, see Crl.A. 1492/2013.
25''^ FEBRUARY, 2016
•-J".
G. S. SISTANI, J.
SANGITA'DHINGy^ SEHGAL, J 2016:DHC:8874-DB HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.A.N0.1492/1^
Judgmentreservedon 24^'' November, 2015
Judgmentdeliveredon^%bruary, 2016 VINOD@V^ODE@BHOLE ...Appellant
Through: Mr.Praveen Kumar, Advocate
Tu 1 ..r ^ ...Respondent
Through: Mr.Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP for the State
CRL.A.N0.182/2014 PREMCHA®@FAUZI ...Appellant
Through: Mr.Neeraj Bhardwaj, Advocate
Through: Mr.Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP for the State
CRL.A.N0.1595/2ni3 ASHOK KUMAR ...Appellant
Through: Mr.Habibur Rehman, Advocate
Through: Mr.Feroz KhanGhazi, APP for the State
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
2. Present appeals arise out of a judgment dated 20.07.2013 and order on conviction dated 30.08.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, by which the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, under Section 368 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, under Section344 of the IndianPenal Code read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, under Section 347 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 364A ofthe Indian Penal Code read with Section 120B ofthe Indian Penal Code and sentenced them as under: Offence under Section Punishment Section 120 of the Indian Penal Code Rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisomnent for one month. Section 368 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 120 of the Indian Penal Code Rigorous imprisonment for five imprisonment for one month. Section 344 of the Indian Penal Rigorous imprisonment for two Section 347 of the Indian Penal Rigorous imprisonment for two Section 364A of the Indian Penal Life imprisonment for two years and to pay fine Rs.2,000/- in "Factual matrix of the prosecution case is that on 16.09.2007 Mahipal (PWl) visitedPSNew Ashok Nagar and complained about missing ofhis brother Ajay (PW[5]) and neighbour Ravinder Kumar (PW[6]) since 13.09.2007. He further told that he and relatives of PW[6] had been receiving ransom calls. Ins. Arun Kumar (PW16) prepared rukka and got FIR registered under Section 364A IPC. Call detail records (CDRs) ofmobile No. 9871276142 belong to victim Ravinder andphone No. 9971427767 belonging to Ajay were analyzed. Number 9997436407 wasfound as suspect number. On the basis of analysis of CDRs, it was found that victims were somewhere in the area ofDistrict Ferozabad, UP. On 01.10.2007, PWl[6] along with Insp. Ram Kishore (PWl[5]) reached at the office of SSP, Ferozabad andfrom local intelligence, he came to know that the gang of accused Vinod is involved in such activities. On 04.10.2007, PWl[6] with other police staffs reached PS-Matsena, DistrictFerozabad, UP and there he met SO K. K. Mishra (PWl[9]). Astrategy was plannedfor launching combing operation in the area and various teams were constituted. The area was searched next day in the afternoon. PWl[9] received asecret information that aperson named Vinod is standing near Sikera Mata Mandir and is waiting for someone and he has been beholding two persons of Delhi. Team ofPWl6reached at Sikera Mata Mandir and on the pointing out ofinformer, accused Vinod was apprehended From hispossession, one mobilephone belonging to Ravinder (PW[6]) was recovered During interrogation, accused Vinod made disclosure statement and ledpolice party to Beehar at a distance of FA - 2 kilometers from that place. There two victims i.e Ajay and Ravinder (PW[5] and PW[6]) were found lying on the ground with theirfeet tied with rope and their eyes were tied with 'angochhas'. Associates of accused Vinod managed to run away Both the victims were in bad shape as they had lost their weight, wearing dirty clothes and appear not to have shavedfor 20-25 days. Both the victims were brought to Delhi. On 12.12.2007, PWl7received information that accused Prem Chand @Fauzi has been arrested by thepolice ofPSMakhanpur, DistrictFerozabad, UP. He sought his production warrant and got him produced in the court on application for production warrant accused Ashok, who was in judicial custody. On 27.04.2009, accused Ashok was arrested in this case. Efforts were made to arrest other accused but they could not be arrestedand they were got declared asproclaimedoffenders (Pos). Police filed supplementary chargesheet against accused Ashok Kumar and other co-accused- by showing them as Proclaimed Offenders. Supplementary chargesheet has beenfiled under Section 364A/344/34 IPG. "
4. Learned Counsel for the appellants submit that the impugned judgment and order on sentence is based on conjectures and surmises and the trial Court has erred in reaching aconclusion ofguilt against the appellants. It is strongly urged before this Court that there are material inconsistencies between the testimonies of the witnesses. The learned Trial Court has failed to take into account that as per the prosecution the victims were recovered on 05.10.2007, however, as per the complainant PWl, the victims were recovered on 04.10.2007. It is further contended that there are material contradictions with regard to the date when the alleged ransom letter was received. Counsel contend that as per PWl ransom letter was received on 21.09.2007 while according to PW[2] ransom letter was received on 18.09.2007, whereas as per Investigating Officer, PWl[5], ransom letter was handed over to him on 20.09.2007.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant Vinod submits that the recoveries, which have been made at his instance i.e. mobile phone, rope and angochha stated to have been recovered by the police at the instance of accused Vinod were not sealed and hence can not be relied upon in evidence brought on record by the prosecution that mobile phones which material contradictions regarding as to whether PW[5] & PW[6] were taken to Police Station Matsena or directly brought to Delhi immediately after they were rescued. It is pointed out that as per the testimony of PW19, victims PW[5] & PW[6] and the accused person were not brought to Police Station Matsena whereas as per PW[5] and PW[6] after they were rescued they were taken to Police Station Matsena, however, in the testimony of PW15 and PW16, who were mainly involved in the rescue operation, deposed that after the victims were rescued, they along with the accused Vinod were brought to Delhi. According to learned counsel for the appellant Vinod, this major contradiction creates serious doubt in the story ofthe prosecution.
6. It is also pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant Vinod that the learned Trial Court has failed to consider that in the first disclosure statement, Ex.PW3/B, made by appellant Vinod, when he was initially apprehended by the police, he did not name the other two co-accused persons i.e. Prem Chand @ Fauzi and Ashok Kumar. It is, however, pointed out that the aforesaid two names were incorporated in the second disclosure statement which according to the appellant Vinod was fabricated to implicate them. Counsel contends that in case the other two appellants, namely, Prem Chand @ Fauzi and Ashok were in any way connected with the offence, they should have been named in the first disclosure statement made by Vinod.
7. It is also pointed out by the counsel for the appellant that in the entire case not a single independent witness was associated in the investigation and Kumar, and on account of enmity between appellant Ashok Kumar and PW[5], Appellant AshokKumar was falsely implicated in the case.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the entire manner of the investigation ofthe present case would come under a doubt as despite the statement made that victims were beaten daily, enough food were not provided, they were tied with chains for 22 days long and no MLC of the victims were got prepared thus the testimony of the victims can not be relied upon. If there was any truth in the story of the prosecution, the bodies of the victims would have ligature marks, rashes and injuries.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant Ahsok Kumar and Prem Chand submit that no recoveries were made at their instance.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant Vinod has submitted that appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case as he was arrested on 04.10.2007 by the investigating team from Subzi Mandi without assigning any reasons. In support of this contention, it is pointed out that brother of the appellant Vinod in view of the illegal arrest has telegraphed to SSP, DIG on 05.10.2007 informing them about illegal arrest of Vinod, his brother.
11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that prosecution has been able to prove its case without any shadow of doubt. It is further submitted that the ransom letter was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory and report has been received which reveals that the ransom letter contained the handwriting ofthe victim as well as of accused Vinod. It is also contended that repeated calls were made and letters were sent for were abducted by the appellant Ashok Kumar and then handed over to appellant Prem Chand @Fauzi and Vinod. It is further submitted that victims were in fact medically examined at Delhi and only thereafter they were handed over to their respective family. It is also submitted that it is wrong to suggest that Vinod was arrested on 04.09.2007, he was arrested on 05.09.2007 which is evident from the testimony of PW[2]. Learned counsel for the State further submits that the contradictions which have been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants are minor which do not go to the root the case ofthe prosecution and do not go in favour in of the appellants.
12. Before the rival submissions ofcounsel for the parties are considered, we deem it appropriate to analyse the testimonies of some of the important witnesses.
13. PW-1, Shri Mahipal, is the real brother ofone ofthe victims i.e. Ajay Pal. PW-1 is also the complainant. As per the testimony of PW-1, on 13.9.2007 around 11.00 a.m. he was present at his shop when aperson approached him and enquired about his brother, Ajay. PW-1 informed the said person that Ajay was nearby and would come within 10-15 minutes. On asking, he infomied PW-1 that his name was Ashok. After 10-15 minutes, Ajay came to the shop. Ajay Pal was informed that one Ashok, was asking his whereabouts. After 10-15 minutes Ashok again came to the shop. PW-1 informed Ajay that this was the person, who had come to the shop and asked about his whereabouts. Ashok informed Ajay Pal that he had some work with him. Both started conversing outside the shop of the shop of PW-1 and proceeded in the direction of Kalyan Puri. PW-1 has further testified that his brother, Ajay Pal, did not return till evening. On the next day, PW-1 enquired from his sister and also from the Villagers about his brother, Ajay Pal. PW-1 has further testified that on 15.9.2007 a telephone call was received by his brother-in-law, Shri Ashok Nagar, at 8.30 a.m. and he informed PW-1 that he was receiving calls from phone of one Ravinder and the caller was asking for ransom of Rs.25.00 lakhs for release of Ajay Pal and Ravinder. Brother-in-law of PW-1 gave him the number of Ravinder but Ravinder did not pick his phone. PW-1 was again informed by his brother-in-law that arrangement for Rs.25.00 lakhs shouldbe made. Later on the place of deliveiy was told as Kachora Ghat, Hanuman Mandir, Etawah. Caller had also informed him that in case the Policewas contacted AjayPal and Ravinder wouldbe killed. PW-1 contacted the family members of Ravinder, who also informed that they had received a phone call demanding ransom of Rs.25.00 lakhs. PW-1 has further testified that around 9/10 a.m. he received a call on his PCO phone fi.-om the phone of Ravinder, which number hadbeen given to him byhis brother-in-law. The caller demanded Rs.25.00 laldis from him in lieu of release of Ajay Pal and Ravinder. PW- 1 was advised not to contact the Police, failing which they would lose both the persons. PW-1 has also testified that on 16.9.2007 a report was lodged withthe Police giving details of the entire facts. His statement was recorded as Ex.PW-l/A. He described the person, who came to his shop enquiring about his brother Ajay, had a dense moustache, he was wearing letter (Exhibit PW-l/B) to the Police in his presence. A similar letter (Exhibit PW-l/C) was received by the family of Ravinder. The letters were in the handwriting of his brother, Ajay Pal, and Ravinder. Initially, he testified that he cannot identify those letters but could identify the handwriting of his brother Ajay. This witness also testified that on 4.10.2007 police got recovered his brother, Ajay Pal, and Ravinder from Etawah.
14. On the next date ofthe examination-in-chief, PW-1 identified the letter (Ex.P-1) and the envelope (Ex.P-2) to be those, which were taken in possession by the Pohce. This witness has also testified that Rs.10.00 lakhs were demanded vide the said letter.
15. PW-1 was cross-examined at length. During cross-examination, he testified that his brother had not informed him specifically where he was going. He further testified that his brother used to sleep on a wooden planlc in the shop. Size of the shop was described as 10x12 sq. ft. It is further testified that occasionally, his brother would go to the house of their sister. He also testified that although there was amilk shop, awasher man shop and a grocery shop nearby his shop yet he did not know their names. During cross-examination, PW-1 could not tell the nature of clothes worn by the person, who had come to his shop. He also described the said man as having height of about 5'9" and was having abeard. In Court PW-1 had identified Ashok as the person, who had come to his shop. PW-1 denied the suggestion that Ashok had~been falsely implicated at the instance of his brother, Ajay Pal, who was lodged in Tihar Jail
16. It is the case of the appellants that PW-1, Mahipal Singh, is not a reliable, witness. It is further the case of the appellants that there are material contradictions in the evidence of PW-1 as far as the appellant Ashok, visiting the shop in question is concerned.
17. PW-2, Sandeep Singh Verma @ Sintu, has testified that he is running a shop at Ghaziabad. On 15.9.2007 at 9.30 a.m. he received a phone call from Prem Chand @ Fauzi, who informed him that Ravinder and Ajay Pal were in his custody and Rs.25.00 lakhs were demanded for their release, which were to be delivered at Kachora Ghat, Hanuman Temple. The caller also cautioned PW-2 not to inform the Police or else both, Ravinder and Ajay, would be killed. PW-2 also testified that Ravinder was his maternal uncle and he was residing with him since childhood at Village Dagarpur. He also testified that this fact was informed to other family members including maternal aunt, Smt.Poonam Verma. On 16.9.2007, he along with Mahipal, brother of Ajay (PW-1), visited the Police Station and reported the matter. This witness also testified that he was informed by the caller that he would receive letters in the handwritings of Ajay Pal and Ravinder and on 18.9.2007 a postman had delivered a letter at his house at Village Dagarpur. The said letter was in the handwriting of his maternal uncle, Ravinder. As per the letter money was to be arranged as soon as possible, failing which Ravinder would be killed. After receipt of the letter another phone call was received on 19.9.2007 between 8.30 and 9.00 p.m. The caller made Ravinder talk to this witness. Ravinder told him that the demand should be accepted, reiterated the same facts to Poonam. Thereafter the phone was disconnected. This witness has also testified that similar letters were received in the house of Ajay Pal, which was handed over to the Police. PW-2 has also testified that the caller was in constant touch with them. The caller asked them to. reach Kachora Ghar, Hanuman Temple, via Jaswant Nagar.
18. As per PW-2 on 23.9.2007, he along with Devender, brother of Ajay Pal, and driver proceeded for Jaswant Nagar by a car. They stayed at Firozabad in the night as they became late. They reached Jaswant Nagar in the morning on 24.9.2007. On his mobile number 9410054905 he received a call from the number of Ravinder at 9.30 a.m. As per this witness, he used to receive calls of the caller from the same very number of Ravinder at his mobile, besides landline phone. The caller had informed that they were present in Jaswant Nagar. The caller instructed them to reach Kachora Ghat and further enquired about Prem Chand Fauzi. They made efforts to trace Prem Chand Fauzi but could not do so. Another call was received and they were directed to reach Village Roora. But none came to contact them. The caller again instructed them to reach at Ahir Tola. They reached the said place. They were all along followed by the Police team. They were again informed by the caller to reach the house of a person behind the petrol pump. When they reached the said place, they were again informed to reach Village Sirsa. The details were being informed by this witness telephonically to Inspector Ram Kishore Meena. At night, this witness stayed in a hotel at Etawah, as directed by them to reach home and arrange for the money and consequently they reached home on 25.9.2007 without any clue of Ajay Pal and Ravinder.
19. On 26.9.2007 again a call was received by this witness from the same caller. The caller had instructed this witness to arrange for money, fixing the last date as 30.9.2007, failing which, Ajay and Ravinder would be killed. On the following morning, again a phone call was received. At the request of this witness, the caller allowed this witness to talk to Ravinder. Ravidner had repeated the same conversation. Time was extended upto 4.10.2007 for arranging money.
20. As per this witness, the caller kept on contacting him about the arrangement of money. On 4.10.2007 PW-2 went to Etawah by train along with Atma Ram Verma for arranging money. Around 9. or 9.30 p.m., he received a call from Inspector Ram Kishore Meena asking him to remain present at Etawah. On the following day i.e. 5.10.2007 around
8.30 or 9.00 a.m. this witness received a call from Inspector Ram Kishore Meena informing him that Ajay Pal and Ravinder had been rescued. He was called at Police Station Matsena. On reaching the Police Station Ajay Pal and Ravinder were found. After meeting them they returned to Delhi. PW-2 was also cross-examined in detail.
21. Another important witness is PW-3, HC Naresh, who has testified that on ' 4.10.2007 he along with SI Arun Kumar, Inspector Ram Kishore and other police staff had reached Police Station Matsena, District Firozabad, in connection with the investigation of this case. As per his testimony, the above persons had proceeded from Delhi on 1.10.2007 by a private was divided in two teams, consisting of four members in each. This witness had accompanied Inspector Ram Kishore Meena, SI Arun and SO K.K. Mishra. Both these teams'started combing operation during evening in the forest area of Village Sikora. Further, as per the testimony of this witness, on 5.10.2007 SO K.K. Mishra had received information around
12.30 noon that a person was waiting near Sikora Kali Mata Wala Mandir, whose name was Vinod, who had kidnapped two persons and demanded ransom for their release. The entire team reached the informed place at
12.45 p.m. The person was over powered. This witness identified Vinod present in Court. Search was conducted and two mobile phones i.e. (i) Black coloured LG mobile phone and (ii) Silver coloured NOKIA mobile phone were recovered from his possession.
22. The I.O. informed that LG mobile phone belonged to Ravinder and Silver coloured NOKIA phone was of Vinod, who were abducted. Details of Mobile numbers including IMEI numbers were incorporated in the seizure memo. On interrogation Vinod disclosed that he could lead the Police to the forest of Sikora to enable them to recover the abducted persons i.e. Ravinder and Ajay. The disclosure statement of Vinod is Exhibit PW-3/B and the aiTest memo and search memo are Exhibit 3/C and D, respectively. All the above documents were signed by this witness at points 'A'. On reaching the spot two persons were found tied with rope pieces and their eyes were tied with a cloth. Both the persons, namely, Ravinder and Ajay, were untied and released. Rope pieces and cloth pieces were seized by the 10, Exhibit PW-3/E. Ravinder and Ajay were handed over to their family members. This witness identified the mobile phone, two towels (angochas) and two pieces ofjute rope.
23. During cross-examination, PW-3 could not tell the DD number vide which they had proceeded to Firozabad nor could he tell the time of departure. He also could not tell the Registration number of the vehicle Qualis nor he recalled the time of reaching Police Station Matsena. He also could not tell the number of anival entry at Police Station. He confliTned that the victims, Ravinder and Ajay Pal, had been tied with the ropes. None from the Village Sikora was called during the disclosure statement.
24. PW[4], Shri Atma Ram, who was working as ASI in Delhi Police, has testified that Ravinder is his brother-in-law and Ajay is the neighbour of Ravinder. He has further testified that on 14.9.2007 he was telephonically informed by Smt.Poonam, wife ofRavinder, that Ravidner and Ajay had been kidnapped and a demand ofRs.25.00 lakhs as ransom has been made for their release. This witness also testified that phone calls ofthe caller were being tapped by Sandeep. The Police was informed and the matter was being pursued. It is further testified that on 5.10.2007 he was present at Dagar Pur. He had received information through Police that Ajay and Ravinder had been rescued. He along with Poonam, Sintu and other persons went to Police Station New Ashok Nagar. Around 11.30 p.m. the Police reached with Ajay and Ravinder and one accused person Vinod, whom he identified in Court.
25. PW[5], Ajay, and PW[6], Ravinder, are the victims. PW[5] has testified that Delhi. In jail he came in contact with another person, namely, Ashok with whom he became friendly. Although he was released in the year 2000- 2001 Ashok continued to be confined in Tihar Jail. In August, 2007, Ashok had come to his village and met him. Ashok informed PW[5] that after his release he started abusiness at Bombay and after winding up of his business at Bombay he settled in Firozabad. Ashok sought the help of PW[5] to purchase a plot at NOIDA or Delhi to enable him to start his business. PW[5] assured help to Ashok in this regard and informed that he was having ashop at Kondli. The family members ofPW[5] including one, Devender, were present when Ashok had met him at the Village. Ashok had requested PW[5] to accompany him to his village with aview to assure his wife that PW-5 is his well-wisher and may help him in connection with his business at Delhi, as his wife was apprehensive that none would support Ashok inthe area ofDelhi orNOIDA. Ashok had met them atthe bus stand and requested PW-5 to accompany him to Firozabad. Ashok also suggested that they should travel to Firozabad by motocycle but PW[5] declined the request ofAshok and ultimately all the three persons came to the shop ofPW-1 at Kondli by that motorcycle. Ashok had alighted from the motorcycle near abarber shop at Kondli for shaving, which was at a distance of about 10-15 steps from the shop of PW[5]. He had conveyed' this fact to his brother, Mahipal. He also parked his motorcycle at this shop. PW[5] conveyed to his brother that he had to go to Firozabad with his friend. Ashok had then come to the shop. His brother questioned him and he got his brother introduced with Ashok and thereafter all the three to back seat. Ashok told him that he was informing his wife so that she may prepare food for them. They reached Firozabad at about 10- 10:30PM. Accused Ashok made a call from nearby PCO. One person met him near PCO. Two persons came there onmotorcycle. He and PW[6] were made to sit on motorcycle. One motorcycle was being driven by accused Vinod and other motorcycle was being driven by accused Prem Chand @ Fauzi. They covered a distance of 8-10 KM. Thereafter 6-7 persons met them on the way. Those persons took out the ignition key from the motorcycle. One of them put country-made revolver on his temporal region. The person who was sitting behind him on motorcycle caught hold of him by his collar. Thereafter his eyes were tied with a cloth band and they were directed to keep quite failing which they were threatened to be killed. Thereafter their hands were tied by rope and they were taken on foot from that place. He covered distance of 2-3 KM and he was made to sit in a place. He was wearing four gold rings and was having mobile phone and Rs. 4,000/- Rs, 5,000/-, all these things were taken away. He requested those persons to let them go but they were told that they have abducted them (Hamne tumhari pakad kar li). On being asked about Ashok, he was told that they have taken him from accused Ashok in lieu ofRs. 20,000/- paid as advance and rest ofmoney has to be paid. From the voice ofRavinder, he felt his presence there.
26. PW[5] fiirther deposed that he was told that their Chief (mukhiya) would come in the morning. He was kept in chain. His hands were tied with angochha and his eyes were tied with band. Cotton was inserted in his letter demanding Rs.10,00,000/- from his family in lieu ofhis release. Initially they had talked about Rs.35,00,000/-thereafter they came down to Rs.25,00,000/- and lastly he was directed to write Rs.10,00,000/- for his release for which he wrote a letter. Again his eyes were tied with a band. He provided phone number ofhis brother in law. Subsequently he was assured that they had talked with his family members and they would be released within 3-4 days. PW[6] was also forced to write asimilar letter. He was provided roti and chatni in the morning and evening. In case need ofnatural call, his chain was released little bit and again he used to be brought at the same place. He remained confined for about 22-23 days. During this period, 3-4 persons continuously guarded them with arms. He was made to realize arms by putting such arms in his hands. When police reached persons guarding them managed to escape. At that time, accused Vmod was in the custody ofthe police. They were taken to local PS and then brought to Delhi. On 28.12.2007 he visited PS New Ashok Nagar with PW[6] where he saw accused Prem Chand and he identified him as the same person who has escorted him on motorcycle along with other associates.
27. PW[6] Ravinder also deposed on the similar lines as deposed by PW[5].
28. PW[7] Poonam, wife ofRavinder deposed that she had received phone call from him that he was going to Firozabad and will return within aday or two. She deposed that on 14.09.2007 phone of Ravinder was found switched off and on 15.09.2007 when she called, some person attended the phone call who informed that Ravinder had been abducted by
29. PW[8] Ct. Ramesh was a witness to the arrest of the accused Prem Chand @ Fauji in Court andproved his arrest memo and disclosure statement as Ex.PWS/A and PW8/B respectively. PW[9] Shri. G.N. Pandey, Ld. MM proved the TIP proceedings of accused Prem Chand @ Fauji as Ex. PW9/A to PW9/C. PWIO HC Mahavir was the duty officer who proved the copy ofthe FIR as Ex.PW10/A.
30. PWll Ashok, brother-in-law ofvictim Ajay deposed that he had received the ransom call regarding which he informed PW-1 Mahipal. PW12 Davender was the elder brother Ajay who deposed about the abduction of Ajay and Ravinder and the ransom call made by the caller. He further deposed that the custody of victim Ajay was given to him vide memo EX.PW12/A.
31. PW13 HC Rambir Singh, the MHC (M) proved the entries made in Register No. 19 as Ex.PW 13/A and PW13/B. PW14 SI Vinay Yadav collected the calls details of mobile numbers 9871276142 of victim Ravinder and 9971427767 of victim Ajay and of No. 9997436407 and proved the same as Ex.Pwl4/A to PW14/H[5].
32. PW15 Insp. Ram Kishore took over investigation of this case on 19.09.2007 and he deposed that on 20.09.2007 he was handed over ransom letters by Shintu and Mahipal and he examined the call details of phone No. 9971427767 and 9997436407. He further deposed about the investigation done by him, during the time when he reached Jaswant Nagar to Agra and Firozabad. He further deposed about the arrest of accused Vinod and recovery oftwo mobile phones from him and recovery IM portrait of accused Asholc which is Ex.PW16/B. He further deposed the investigation proceedings carried out by him. He further proved the seizure memo ofmotorcycle ofvictim Ravinder as Ex.PW16/C, specimen handwriting of accused Vinod as Ex.PW16/Dl and D[2] and also proved the arrest documents of accused Prem Chand @ Fauji on 15.12.2007 who was produced in Karkardooma Courts by the police of PS Maldianpur, District, Ferozabad. He further proved the FSL Report as Ex.Cl and identifiedthe case property.
34. PW17 Shyam Babu Verma the owner of motor cycle No. DL-8S AH- 4584 handed over by him to his cousin Ravinder which he took on superdari under orders of the Court. He proved the superdarinama as Ex.PWlT/A and motorcycle as Ex.PW17/Articlel. PW18 ASI Rajinder Singh was the 10 with regard to accused Ashok on 27.04.2009. he proved his arrest memo as Ex.PW18/A.
35. PW19 SI Kiishna Kumar Mishra from PS Matsena, District Feroxabad, UP had joined the investigation team of SI Arun Kumar and Ins. Ram Krishore along with other staff on 04.10.2007. He deposed about the arrest of accused Vinod, he also deposed about the recovery of two mobile phones from him and the recovery of both the victims. He further identified the caseproperty in the Court.
36. PW20 Sh. R.K. Singh, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd proved CDRs of mobile No. 9971427767 and 9871276142 for the period from 01.09.2007 to 18.09.2007 for Delhi Circle and UP West Circle. He also proved customer application form, copy of ID proof, cell ID of these numbers as Kumar denied the entire evidence against him and took the defence of false implication. He stated that he was lodged in Tihar Jail along with PW[5] and used to watch TV along with him. Once he had beaten him in jail since then PW[5] was having enmity with him and had threatened to take revenge.
38. Accused Prem Chand @ Fauji also denied entire evidence against him. Accused Vinod also denied entire evidence against him stating that he was lifted from near subziMandi. Victims were apprehended a day before and he was falsely implicated in this case.
39. Accused Vinod led defence evidence and examined DWl Munesh and DW[2] Sanjay and took defence to prove his false implication.
40. To decide the present case in hand we are ofthe view that it is important to discuss the role of all the accused persons. Accused Ashok insisted PW[5] to comewith himto Ferozabad to assure his wiTe that PW[5] will help him in establishing his business at Delhi. PW[6] being friend ofPW[5] also accompanied them to Ferozabad. As per their plan, accused Prem Chand @Fauzi and accused Vinod came there on the motorcycle and on the point ofagun took PW[6] on the motorcycle. Their eyes were covered with cloth and hands were tied with a rope. Accused Vinod was apprehended by the police on05.10.2007 from Sikora Mata Mandir, he made a disclosure statement Ex. PW3/B, pursuant to the statement he got recovered PW[5] and PW[6] from the forest nearby. As per FSL report Ex.Cl ransom notes received by relatives of PW[5] and PW[6] were in handwritingofaccusedVinod. and PW[6] for ransom. Section 120A of the Indian Penal Code defines criminal conspiracy as under: "120A. Definition ofcriminal conspiracy.—When two or moreper sons agree to do, or cause to be done,— (1) an illegal act, or (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy: Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreementis done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof Explanation.—It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object ofsuch agreement, or is merely incidental to that object."
42. The ingredients of the Section 120B are also proved in the present case as: a) There was an agreement between the persons who are alleged to conspire. b) The agreement was for an illegal activity. c) The common intention of the accused persons was also proved. d) All the accused have played there part in the act for achieving the common purpose for their common benefits.
43. So far as the discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses are concerned, we are of the view that it is not possible for a witness to remember each and every fact of the incident and the law in this regard is well settled by the Apex Court in Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State ofGujarat: (1983) 3 SCC 217, observed that: "...overmuch importance cannot be attached to minor discrepancies, by and large a witness cannot be expected to discrepancies shall not cause injustice to the victims of such ^grievanceact... "
44. In Krishna Mochi and Ors. vs. State ofBihar: ( 2002) 6 SCC 81, the Hon'ble ApexCourt heldas under: "...If a whole body of the testimony is to be rejected because the witness was evidently speaking an untruth in some aspect, it is to be feared that administration ofcriminaljustice would come to a dead stop. Witnesses just cannot help in giving embroidery to a story, however true in the main. Therefore, it has to be appraised in each case as to what extent the evidence is worthy of acceptance, and merely because in some respects the Court considers the same to be insufficient for placing reliance on the testimony of a witness, it does not necessarily follow as a matter of law that it must be disregarded in all respect as well. The evidence has to be satisfied with care. One hardly comes across a witness, whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggeration, embroidery or embellishments. An attempt has to be made to separate thegrainfrom thechaff... " XXX "It is matter of common experience that in recent times there has been sharp decline ofethical values in public life even in developed countries much less developing one, like ours, where the ratio of decline ishigher. Even in ordinary cases, witnesses are not inclined to depose or their evidence is notfound to be credible by courtsfor manifold reasons. One ofthe reasons may be that they do not have courage to depose against an accused because of threats to their life, more so when the offenders are habitual criminals or high-ups in the Government or close to powers, which may be political, economic or other powers including muscle power. A witness may not stand the test of cross-examination which may sometimes be because he is a bucolic person and is not able to understand the question put to him by the skilful cross-examiner andat times under close to powers andmuscle men or their associates. Such instances are also not uncommon where a witness is not inclined to depose because in the prevailing social structure he wants to remain indifferent..."
45. Substantially similar view was taken by Hon'ble Apex Court in Kuria and Am. V. State ofRajasthan: (2012)10SCC 433, the Apex Court held: "...This Court has repeatedly taken the view that the discrepancies or improvements which do not materially affect the case of the prosecution and are insignificant cannot be made the basis for doubting the case of the prosecution. The courts may not concentrate too much on such discrepancies or improvements. The purpose is to primarily and clearly sift the chafffrom the grain and find out the truthfrom the testimony ofthe witnesses. Where it does not affect the core ofthe prosecution case, such discrepancy should not be attached undue significance. The normal course of human conduct would be that while narrating a particular incident, there may occur minor discrepancies. Such discrepancies may even in law render credential to the depositions. The improvements or variations must essentially relate to the material particulars of the prosecution case. The alleged improvements and variations must be shown with respect to material particulars of the case and the occurrence. Every such improvement, not directly related to the occurrence, is not a ground to doubt the testimony ofa witness. The credibility ofa definite circumstance of the prosecution case cannot be weakened with reference to such minor or insignificant improvements. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgments ofthis Court in Kathi Bharat Vajsur and Anr. v. State of Gujarat: (2012) 5 SCC 724, Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary and Anr. V. State ofMaharashtra: (2000) 8 SCC 457, D.P. Chadha v. Triyugi Narain Mishra and Ors.: (2001) 2 SCC 205, Sukhchain Singh V. State ofHaryana andOrs.: (2002) 5SCC 100. "
46. In Prabhat Singh V[5]. State: Crl. A. 926 and 1010/2009, 422 and 452/2010,192/2011 and 230/2014, this Court observed: discrepancies are inevitable in the statement of witnesses who speak them after longlapse oftime. "
47. In this case, the first lead was provided by Sh.Mahipal, PW-1, who is the real brother of one of the victims, Ajay Pal. PW-1 has testified that on 13.9.2007, around 11.00 a.m., a person had come to his shop and asked for his brother Ajay. Upon asking, the said person has disclosed his name as Ashok. As his brother, Ajay, was not in the shop, on his returning PW- 1 disclosed to him that a person, by the name of Ashok, was asking about his whereabouts. After ten or fifteen minutes the same person returned to the shop. PW-1 told his brother, Ajay, that he was the same person who had introduced himself as Ashok. Thus, the presence and identity of Ashok stands duly established as the person with whom the victim was last seen. PW-1 has ftirther testified that on 15.9.2007 a telephone call had been received by his brother-in-law, Sh.Ashok Nagar, who informed him that someone was making calls from the phone of one, Ravinder, and was asking for ransom of Rs.25.00 lakhs for releasing PW-l's brother and Ravinder (the second Victim). This witness has also testified that he was informed with regard to the place of delivery at Kachora Ghat, Hanuman Mandir, Etawah. This witness has ftirther testified that he was cautioned that in case Police was informed his brother and Ravinder would be killed. PW-1 had contacted the family members of Ravinder, who also informed him that they had also received a phone call concerning demand of ransom of Rs.25.00 lakhs. This witness has also testified that he had received a phone call at his PCO Phone No.64448803 from the phone of PW-1 was recorded as PW-l/A. PW-1 had also provided description of Ashok. PW-1 has also described in his testimony regarding phone calls received by him. PW-1 has also testified that aransom letter was received at his village by his brother, Devender. The said ransom letter was delivered to the Pohce, which was seized by the Police vide memo No.PW-l/B, which bears the signature ofPW-1 atpoint A. PW-1 has also testifiedthat a similar letter had been received by the family of Ravinder, which was also seized by the Police vide memo Exhibit PW-l/C, which also bears his signature at point B. The said letters were in the handwriting of Ajay Pal and Ravinder. PW-1 has also testified that on 4.10.2007 Police had got recovered Ajay Pal and Ravidner from Itawah. PW-1 has also identified the both the ransom letters in the Court.
48. PW-1 was cross-examined in detail. We find that although there were some contradictions in his testimony but as far as the main issues were concerned his testimony remained unshaken.
49. PW-2, Sandeep Singh, had deposed that Ravinder, one ofthe victims, is his maternal uncle and he was residing with him since childhood at Village Dagarpur. PW-2 was one of the persons, who was receiving ransom calls regarding abduction of his uncle, Ravinder. PW-2 has testified that he had received a call at his shop from Prem Chand @Fauji, who was demanding Rs.25.00 lakhs, which amount was to be delivered at Kachora Ghat, Hanuman Temple. PW-2 was told that in case any information was given to the Police then both (Ajay Pal and Ravinder) would be killed; PW-2 had conveyed this message to his other family visited Police Station Ashok Nagar, and a report was made to the Police on 16.9.2007.
50. PW-2 has further testified with regard to the letter delivered at his house at Village Dagarpur. PW-2 has identified the letter to be in the handwriting ofhis maternal uncle, Ravinder. On receipt ofthe letter, PW- 2 again contacted the Police. On 19.9.2007 PW-2 was made to hear the voice of Ravinder, who had asked him to accept the demand of the caller and arrange money from all possible means. His maternal aunt, Poonam Verma, also talked to Ravinder. PW-2 also confirmed that a copy of the ransom letter was handed over to the Police. PW-2 has also testified that a similar letter had been receivedby the brother ofvictim, Ajay Pal.
51. The testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 are reliable for the reason that both the witnesses have described in an identical manner in which the ransom calls were made and the ransom letters were received. Both PW-1 and PW-2 also testified the place where the ransom money was to be delivered i.e. at Kachora Ghat, Hanuman Temple. PW-2 has also given a complete description how the instructions of the caller were being followed and how the Police was in constant touch. PW-2 has also given the dates and time whenthe phonecalls werebeingreceived.
52. The testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 stand fully corroborated by the testimony of the victim, PW-5 Ajay Pal, whose testimony we have discussed in paragraphs aforegoing and the testimony of and PW-6 Ravinder, who deposed on the similar lines as PW-5.
53. PW-5, Ajay Pal (victim) has testified the manner in which he had met complete description of how he, Ravinder and the appellant Ashok travelled to Firozabad. He has also corroborated the testimony of PW-1 with regard to the factum of Ashok coming to the shop of PW-1 and enquiring about PW-5. He has also testified how the three (he, Ravinder and Ashok) proceeded for Firozabad by boarding abus from Anand Vihar at around 3.00 or 3.30 pm and a bus from Etaah. The victim has given a complete description that how he and Ravinder were made to sit on the motorcycle. One motorcycle was being driven by the appellant, Vinod, and the other motorcycle was being driven by Prem chand @Fauji. PW-5 and Ravinder were made to sit in between on the motorcycle. After eight or nine kilometers 6-7 persons met them. The motorcycles were slowed down and the ignition keys were taken off. One ofthe persons had put a country made pistol on the temporal region ofPW-5. PW-5 has further testified that their eyes were tied with a cloth and'hands were tied with a rope. They were taken on foot for a distance. The way was rough and having pits and heights at several places. All the belongings ofPW-5 were removed. PW-5 has also testified that he was informed that they were handed over to them by Ashok in lieu ofRs.20,000/-, which was paid as advance. This witness has also given a vivid description of the manner in which he was made to write the ransom letter andthe manner inwhich his hands and eyes were tied. PW-5 identified the ransom letter which was got written by him.
54. PW-5 also identified the appellant, Prem Chand @ Fauji, as the person, who had escorted him on motorcycle along with other associates. were made to sit in between on the motorcycle. PW-6 has identified appellant, Vinod. PW-6 has also testified the manner in which a country made pistol was put on his temporal rejoin; his hands were tied and eyes were covered; the manner in which the persons were addressing each other i.e. Chotta Fauji, Bada Fauji, Chela Ram, Prem Chand, etc. PW-6 has also identified the letter written by him demanding ransom money for his release. PW-6 has also identified Prem Chand @ Fauji as the person, who had taken them on the motorcycle.
56. PW-7, Poonam, wife of Ravinder Kumar, has also confirmed that she had received a phone call from her husband, who informed her that he would be going to Ferozabad and would return in one or two days. PW-7 had tried to contact her husband but his phone was switched off. PW-7 has testified that she was informed by the phone of Ravinder that he had been abducted. PW-7 has confirmed that she was directed to arrange Rs.25.00 laldis and also confiraied about the place, being Kachora Ghat, Hanuman Temple, where the money was to be delivered. PW-7 confirmed the manner in which she was threatened that in case Police was informed Ravinder and Ajay would be killed. This witness also confirmed receipt of ransom letter.
57. Based on the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-7, being close family members of the victims, and based on the testimonies of PW-5 and PW-6, being the victims, there is no room for doubt to reach the conclusion that the victims, PW-5 and PW-6, were kidnapped for ransom. The victims were put under fear that in case the ransom amount was not paid, they
58. members, Rs.25.00 lakhs was being demanded towards ransom and the family members were being threatened that in case Police was informed both, Ajay and Ravinder, would be killed. The witnesses have not made any contradictions with regard to the main issues such as the amount ofransom, the place wherethe money was to be delivered, the date when the Police was informed, the manner of phone calls and the kind oflanguage used. Similarly both the victims have given an almost identical description about the manner mwhich they were kidnapped, how they reached Firozabad and then Etah. their further journey on motorcycle, and the manner they were kept with their hands tied and eyes covered. The victims and their family members have also given aconsistent description of the ransom letters, which stand duly identified by PW-5 and PW-6. respectively.
59. PW-3, HC Naresh, has testified the mamier in which he along with SI Arun Kumar, Inspector Ram Kishore and other Pohce Staff reached Police Station Matsena, District Firozabad; the manner in which the Police party was divided into two teams consisting of four members m each team; the mamier in which Vinod, one ofthe appellants, was over powered; about the mobile phones including LG Phone, which belonged to Ravinder, which were recovered from him, and based on the disclosure of Vinod, Ravinder and Ajay were recovered from the forest of Sikora. PW-3 has also proved the arrest memo ofVinod and his personal search, being Exhibit PW-3/C and PW-3/D, respectively. PW-3 has also confirmed that the victims were found tied with ropes and their eyes were
60. PW-3 has also identified the towel, two mobile phones and two rope pieces made ofjute, which were used to tie up the victims and the mobile phones used to make ransom calls.
61. We may also notice at this stage that the accused persons had refused to take part in the TIP.
62. Another witness, PW-11, Ashok also testified that that he had received a phone call on 15.9.2007 after confirming that he was brother-in-law (Behnoi) of Ajay, he was informed that Ajay and Ravinder had been abducted and Rs.25.00 laldis were demanded in lieu of their release.
63. After perusing the judgments refeiTed to in the paragraphs aforegoing and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case as well as the criminality of the offence of the appellants, we are of the considered view that the decision rendered by the learned Trial Court in the present case is just and proper and any interference therein by this Court might cause injustice tothe victims ofthepresent case.
64. In view of the above, the appeals do not present special features warranting ai;iy interference by this Court. The appeals are devoid of any merit and are, accordingly, dismissed.
65. Copy ofthis judgment be sent to the Superintendent, Jail for information ofthe appellants. Trial Court Record be sent back along with copy ofthe judgment.