Judgment

Altamas Kabir, J.

Certain issues of legal importance, which call for examination, have surfaced in this otherwise sordid tale.

2. On 18th January, 2003, one Shri Vimal Chadha, resident of C-2/46, Ashok vihar, Phase II, Delhi, filed a Missing Persons Report with the Ashok Vihar Police Station, Delhi, stating that his son, Parakh Chadha, had left home and had not returned. The next day he lodged F.I.R. No.34/03 at the Ashok Vihar Police Station which was initially registered under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that a call had been received from an unknown caller demanding Rs.35 lakhs as ransom for the release of his son. The body of Parakh Chadha, who was between the age of 17 and 20 years, was recovered on the same day. Accordingly, on 4th May, 2003 Sections 302/201/120-B, read with Section 34 I.P.C., were added in the First Information Report.

3. It may, however, be noted that, although, the body of the victim was recovered on 19th January, 2003, the fact that the body was that of the victim Parakh Chadha was not known to the complainant or his father. The complainant and his father continued to receive ransom calls for the release of his son even, thereafter, on 20th January, 2003, 1st February, 2003, 10th March, 2003 and 11th March, 2003. In fact, the said phone calls made to the complainant were also intercepted by the police and the same were also recorded by the complainant. Subsequently, the voice of the callers was identified by the Central Forensic Science Laboratory Reports as being those of the Petitioner, Vikas Choudhary, and the co-accused, Vikas Sidhu. On 4th May, 2003, the Petitioner was arrested and on a personal search being conducted, a seizure memo of the recoveries made from his house was prepared and the disclosure statement made by him was recorded. From the seizure memo it is seen that the wrist watch worn by the deceased Parakh Chadha was recovered from the Petitioner while the gold chain which had been worn by the deceased was recovered from the co-accused Vikas Sidhu. It appears from the disclosure statement made by the different accused that after killing the victim his body was thrown in a drain and was set on fire after sprinkling petrol thereupon. It is on 9th May, 2003, after the accused had been arrested that they disclosed the place where the victim's body had been burnt and from where some burnt clothing and shoes of the deceased had been recovered and kept in Malkhana of P.S. Kotwali City, Ghaziabad. The complainant identified the clothes and shoes to be that of his son and subsequently also identified the gold chain and the wrist watch which had been worn by his son on the day of his disappearance and had been recovered from the possession of the Petitioner and the co-accused, Vikas Sidhu, as belonging to his son.

4. On completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the Petitioner and Vikas Sidhu under Sections 364A/302/201/34/120-B, while the names of Joginder, Yogesh Rawat and Anil Pratap were mentioned in Column 3 of the charge-sheet as accused.

5. Recording of evidence of the prosecution witnesses was commenced on 3rd May, 2005, and on 31st May, 2005, for the first time, the Petitioner herein moved an application before the learned Single Judge for transfer of his case to the Juvenile Justice Board on the ground that he was a juvenile at the time of commission of the offence. A matriculation certificate produced on behalf of the Petitioner showed his date of birth to be 20th December, 1985.

6. The aforesaid application filed by the Petitioner was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge on 24th August, 2005, on the ground that the Ossification Test conducted on the Petitioner showed that he was about 19 years and 5 months of age when the offence was committed.

7. The Petitioner thereupon filed Criminal Revision (P) No.751 of 2005 before the Delhi High Court, which, by its order dated 31st August, 2006, remanded the matter to the Addition