Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DAILYLAW 2528 (DEL)

HIRA RAO ALIAS HIRA LAL v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

2007-10-04

B N Chaturvedi

body2007
R. S. SODHI, J. ( 1 ) CRIMINAL Appeal No. 252 of 2005 seeks to challenge the judgment and order of Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, in Sessions Case No. 21 of 2001, arising out of F. I. R. No. 407 of 2000, Police Station Sarita Vihar, whereby learned judge vide his judgment dated 17. 8. 2004 has held the appellant, namely, hira Rao @ Hira Lal, guilty for the offence punishable under Section 364-A i. P. C. Further vide his order dated 18. 8. 2004, he has sentenced the appellant to imprisonment for life for offence punishable under Section 364-A I. P. C. together with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, Rigorous imprisonment for ten months. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case as have been noted by learned Additional sessions Judge in his judgment under challenge are as follows :- ?. . . . . . on 21. 10. 2000, the complainant Jhunni Lal Sharma lodged a report with the police that his son Sumit had gone to attend the school but did not come back. He rang up the school of Sumit and inquired about his son. He talked to the principal who informed him that a telephone call was received that his father was in the hospital and his father has sent his servant, namely, Ram Babu to fetch him from the school and at about 11. 30 a. m. , one person by the name of Ram babu came to the school and claimed to be their servant and took Sumit with him. Peon gave the description of the accused which matched with the description of hira Rao who had been engaged by him for white washing in his house. He lodged the report with the police that his son Sumit has been kidnapped by Hira Rao @ hira Lal and on the basis of said statement, police registered a case u/s 363/364-A IPC. ? ( 3 ) THE Prosecution in order to establish its case examined as many as 14 witnesses. Of these, PW-1, Jhunni Lal, the complainant, father of the victim child, Sumit. PW-2 is Devki Sharma, mother of the child. PW-3, Sumit, the victim. PW-4, Shambu Yadav, chowkidar in Saint Giri Public School. PW-5 is arun Giri, Manager of Saint Giri Public School. PW-6, Rambir Singh, is a formal witness. Of these, PW-1, Jhunni Lal, the complainant, father of the victim child, Sumit. PW-2 is Devki Sharma, mother of the child. PW-3, Sumit, the victim. PW-4, Shambu Yadav, chowkidar in Saint Giri Public School. PW-5 is arun Giri, Manager of Saint Giri Public School. PW-6, Rambir Singh, is a formal witness. PW-7, Sant Ram, was the owner of the house, who gave one room on rent to accused and has proved recovery memo of the child, Exhibit PW 7/a. PW-8, constable Mehar Chand and PW-9, S. K. Gupta, are formal witnesses. PW-10, constable Harjinder Singh, proved disclosure statement of accused Hira Rao, exhibit PW 10/a. PW-11 is S. I. Anil Kumar, who recorded statement of accused and proved arrest memo, Exhibit PW 11/a. He handed over the child, after his medical examination, to the complainant, vide memo Exhibit PW 11/b. PW-12, constable Satish Kumar and PW-13, Constable Krishan Kumar, are formal witnesses. PW-14, S. I. Vijay Pal, is the Investigating Officer. ( 4 ) IT is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that there is no evidence to prove that Sumit Sharma, PW-3, was, in fact, kidnapped by Hira rao @ Hira Lal. He contends that there is no eye-witness and the recovery of the boy from the house of Hira Rao is also not proved. He also contends that the appellant has been falsely implicated since he was a labourer and has been made a scape-goat. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that there is ample evidence inasmuch as PW-1, Jhunni Lal, father of the child, has deposed that on the description of the person, as stated by the peon of the school, it was Hira Rao @ Hira Lal, who was employed by him for white wash, who had taken his child, Sumit, and has been named in the F. I. R. Learned counsel also contends that the child was recovered from the house of Hira Rao which has been deposed by PW-7, Sant Ram. Even, the statement of the recovered child clearly indicates that it was Hira Rao who had kidnapped the child for ransom. ( 6 ) HAVING heard counsel for the parties and with their assistance, we have gone though the record of the case. Even, the statement of the recovered child clearly indicates that it was Hira Rao who had kidnapped the child for ransom. ( 6 ) HAVING heard counsel for the parties and with their assistance, we have gone though the record of the case. Of the 14 witnesses that have been examined by the Prosecution, the material one's are PW-1, Jhunni Lal; PW-3, sumit Sharma; PW-4, Shambu Yadav; PW-5, Arun Giri and PW-7, Sant Ram. ( 7 ) PW-1, Jhunni Lal has deposed that on 19. 10. 2000, his son, Sumit, had gone to school but did not return home at the usual time. He made enquiries from the school where the Principal informed him that at about 11:30 a. m. , one person by the name of Ram Babu had taken Sumit from the school on the pretext that father of the child, Sumit, had been hospitalized. Inquiries were made from the peons from which this witness suspected that it was Hira Rao @ Hira lal, who had taken his son, Sumit. He made further inquiries but Sumit could not be traced. A report was lodged with Sarita Vihar Police Station and investigation began. He had informed the police that he suspected Hira Rao as one of the person who had done white wash at the house on the day of the incident at about 10 a. m. The witness took the police to the house of Hira Rao at Faridabad. However, Sumit could not be traced for four days. During these four days, telephone calls were received at his house which were attended to by wife of this witness. The caller did not disclose his name. On the first day, the caller merely laughed and disconnected the phone. On 20. 10. 2000, the person again called up at night and abused on the phone. On 21. 10. 2000, during the day time, another call was received. The caller again abused the wife of the witness. On 22. 10. 2000 at night, again a call was received. At this time, the caller told his wife that his son had fever and would be given half a tablet of crocin. On 24. 10. 2000, another call was received. It was at this juncture that the caller demanded a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- and directed that the money be brought and placed near a STD Booth in village Chalera, Noida. On 24. 10. 2000, another call was received. It was at this juncture that the caller demanded a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- and directed that the money be brought and placed near a STD Booth in village Chalera, Noida. It was only on receipt of the money that the child would be released. Another call was received on the same night at 9 p. m. enquiring as to whether the money had been arranged and issuing a warning that the police be not informed. This information was passed on by the deponent to the police. On 24. 10. 2000, the police officials went to village Chalera and later on at 10 p. m. , a call was received from the police that Sumit had been recovered and the kidnapper had been apprehended. ( 8 ) PW-2, Devki Sharma, supports the version of PW-1, her husband. PW-3, Sumit, the child of five years of age was examined by the court and after questioning him, the court was satisfied that he could depose, although the child did not understand the sanctity of oath. He deposed that the accused present in court was white washer, who had white washed their house and that his name was Hira Lal. He deposed that one day, Hira Lal came to his school and told him that his maternal grandmother had died and took him to village Chalera. He further stated that Hira Lal took him to his house. In cross-examination, he stated that Hira Lal alone had done white wash in their house. He admitted that he was not tutored by his father as to what was to be deposed in the court and that he knew Hira Lal. He admitted that on the day of the incident, he was brought to the school gate by chowkidar and at that time the teacher was taking the class. He denied that name of the accused was Ram Babu. ( 9 ) PW-4, Shambu Yadav, was the chowkidar in Saint Giri Public school. He deposed to the fact that on 21. 10. 2000, a person by the name of Ram babu had come and asked him to call the child, Sumit. He gave him a slip and told him that maternal uncle of Sumit Sharma had died. The slip was handed over to the Manager of the school. He deposed to the fact that on 21. 10. 2000, a person by the name of Ram babu had come and asked him to call the child, Sumit. He gave him a slip and told him that maternal uncle of Sumit Sharma had died. The slip was handed over to the Manager of the school. Sumit was called from his classroom and he identified the person, who told his name as Ram Babu, as the man who worked for his father. The witness identified the accused and goes on to depose that the accused took away the child, Sumit, from the school on that day. ( 10 ) PW-5, Arun Giri, Manager of Saint Giri Public School, states that a phone call was received in his office on 21. 10. 2000. The caller identified himself to be the father of Sumit Sharma and stated that maternal grandfather of the child had died and that he would be sending his servant to pick up Sumit from school. At 11:35 a. m. , Hira Rao @ Hira Lal visited the school, gave his name as Ram Babu and asked for the child, Sumit Sharma. He was also carrying a slip of some medicines upon which it was written that Ram Babu was being sent to pick up the child. The witness asked the chowkidar to bring sumit Sharma from his class and also asked Sumti Sharma to identify the accused. On Sumit Sharma identifying the person as uncle doing white washing at his house, the school let accused take the child. At 3:30 p. m. , he was informed that the child had not reached home and the police was informed. ( 11 ) PW-6, Rambir Singh, is the owner of the STD Booth, who identified the accused as the person making telephone calls from his PCO Booth. PW-7, Sant Ram, is the landlord who states that in October, 2000, he gave one room in his house on rent to accused Hira Rao, whom he identified in court, at a monthly rent of Rs. 700/ -. He deposed that the accused lived in the room alongwith his wife and two children. On 24. 10. 2000, he noticed a third male child of about four years old and on inquiry, Hira Rao disclosed that the child in question was his nephew. On 25. 10. 700/ -. He deposed that the accused lived in the room alongwith his wife and two children. On 24. 10. 2000, he noticed a third male child of about four years old and on inquiry, Hira Rao disclosed that the child in question was his nephew. On 25. 10. 2000, police persons came alongwith accused and went to the room of the accused situated at first floor. Upon inquiry, he came to know that the accused had kidnapped the child. The police recovered the child from the room of the accused. The witness is the signatory to the recovery memo of the child, Exhibit PW 7/a. ( 12 ) FROM an analysis of the deposition of the witnesses above, it appears that the accused took the child, Sumit, from the school on the pretext of a bereavement in the family of Sumit. He lodged Sumit with his family in the house let out to him by PW-7, Sant Ram. The child stayed there, however, he was recovered on 25. 10. 2000. During this time, repeated phone calls were made to the parents of the child and on 24. 10. 2000, Hira Rao @ Hira Lal demanded a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- for the release of the child, Sumit. The phone call was received by PW-2, Devki Sharma, who has deposed the same in the court. ( 13 ) THE fact that Sumit was taken out of lawful custody of his parents and kept confined at the house of Hira Rao, stands fully established from the ocular evidence as also the documentary evidence, viz-a-viz, the recoveries. As regards demand of ransom, PW-2, Devki Sharma, has categorically stated that on 24. 10. 2000, the caller demanded Rs. 3. 5 lacs for the release of her son, Sumit and that on 25. 10. 2000, the caller again reiterated his demand as condition for release of Sumit. We find no reason to disbelieve PW-2, whose statement has withstood the cross-examination in which, nothing has been brought out to show that she is not a reliable witness. ( 14 ) HAVING analyzed the material on record, we are satisfied with the reasoning of the trial court and its appreciation of evidence on record cannot be faulted with. Consequently, we uphold the judgment of conviction dated 17. 8. 2004 and order on sentence dated 18. 8. 2004 Criminal Appeal No. 252 of 2005 stands dismissed.