Back
2009 Supreme(Del) 408
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Honble Judges: Pradeep Nandrajog and Aruna Suresh, JJ.
Ashok Kumar @ Govind – Appellants
Vs.
State – Respondent
Crl.A. No. 274/2007
[Alongwith Crl.A. Nos. 275, 397, 398, 410 and 601/2007]
Decided On: 09.04.2009
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Abhinav Bajaj, Adv. in Crl.A. No. 274/2007, Tarun Sharma, Adv. in Crl.A. No. 275/2007, Ajay Chaddha, Adv. in Crl.A. No. 397/2007 and Deepak Manmohan Bhalla, Adv. in Crl.A. Nos. 398, 410 and 601/2007
For Respondents/Defendant: Richa Kapoor, Adv.
The admissibility of evidence, including disclosure statements and joint pointing out memos, played a crucial role in determining the guilt of the accused.
Headnote:
Conspiracy - Kidnapping - Murder - IPC Section 120-B, 363, 364-A - The court discussed the admissibility of disclosure statements, joint pointing out memos, and recovery of the dead body as incriminating evidence against the accused. The judgment acquitted some accused due to inadmissible evidence and convicted others based on the evidence of conspiracy, abduction, and murder.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were accused of hatching a conspiracy to kidnap and murder two children for ransom. The children and their driver were abducted, the driver was murdered, and ransom was demanded. The police arrested the accused and recovered the children and the dead body of the driver.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the disclosure statements and joint pointing out memos were inadmissible as evidence against some accused. However, the recovery of the dead body and the children, along with other incriminating evidence, led to the conviction of other accused for conspiracy, abduction, and murder.
Issues: The admissibility of disclosure statements and joint pointing out memos as evidence, the identification of the dead body, and the recovery of the children were key issues in the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the disclosure statements and joint pointing out memos were inadmissible as evidence against some accused, but the recovery of the dead body and the children, along with other incriminating evidence, led to the conviction of other accused for conspiracy, abduction, and murder.
Final Decision: Some accused were acquitted due to inadmissible evidence, while others were convicted based on the evidence of conspiracy, abduction, and murder.
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.
1. Case of the prosecution is that the appellants and co-accused Jeet Kaur (who has been acquitted after the trial) hatched a conspiracy on 16.9.2001 to kidnap for ransom Master Rishabh and Master Shubham, twins aged 4 1/2 years and in furtherance thereof on 17.9.2001 kidnapped Master Rishabh and Master Shubham as also abducted the driver Sunil, employed by Shri Rajiv Aggarwal father of Master Rishabh and Master Shubham. That, in furtherance of the conspiracy, to eliminate they being identified, since appellant Ashok was also employed as a driver by Shri Rajiv Aggarwal and hence driver Sunil knew appellant Ashok, driver Sunil was murdered and body hidden in a cane field next to a canal in village Silarpur and as per the conspiracy ransom in sum of Rupees One Crore for each child was demanded. As per the prosecution, the conspirators gave effect to the conspiracy inasmuch as on 17.9.2001 kidnapped the two children and abducted the driver and thereafter murdered the driver as also demanded ransom but their mission failed because they were apprehended.
2. It is not in dispute that Master Rishabh and Master Shubham were students of Bal Bharti School, Sector-14, Rohini, studying in Nursery Section A. As proved by their class teacher Ms. Anjana Baweja PW-1, who we note has not been cross-examined, Master Rishabh and Master Shubham sons of Shri Rajiv Aggarwal were dropped at the school in the morning by the driver of Rajiv Aggarwal and at 12.45 noon the same day the children were entrusted to driver Sunil after school hours were over.
3. Neither the two young boys nor their driver returned to their house. Their father Rajiv Aggarwal went to the local police station i.e. PS Prashant Vihar at around 6:00 PM on 17.9.2001 and informed HC Khushi Ram PW-5, the officer on duty, that his children as also the driver were missing. HC Khushi Ram noted the statement Ex.PW-5/B in the daily diary register vide DD No. 13A and informed the police control room. He registered the FIR Ex.PW-5/A on the basis of the statement Ex.PW-5/B under Section 363 IPC. Soon thereafter Shri Rajiv Aggarwal received a telephone call demanding ransom of Rupees One Crore per child, which information he dutifully passed on to ASI Chander Pal Singh PW-29 to whom the case was entrusted for investigation after FIR Ex.PW-5/A was registered. ASI Chander Pal Singh recorded a supplementary statement of Shri Rajiv Aggarwal under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and added the offence under Section 364-A IPC for further investigation in the FIR.
4. The employees of Shri Rajiv Aggarwal were kept under observation and search teams were constituted to look for clues and in particular to search and find out the Maruti Zen bearing registration No. DL-8CV-5369, the car in which driver Sunil had picked up the children from the school.
.5. Information was received on 18.9.2001 that the car was seen on the service street at Wazirpur Industrial Area. ASI Chander Pal Singh PW-29 accompanied by Const. Sohan Lal PW-15 immediately left for the spot and seized the car vide seizure memo Ex.PW-15/B. Crime team was summoned. Shri P.K.Gautam PW-18, Senior Scientific Officer, CFSL accompanied by Shri A.D. Sahay, Senior Scientific Assistant came to the spot and lifted chance finger prints from the car.
6. At the laboratory Shri S.K. Chadha PW-20, Senior Scientific Officer was able to successfully develop ten chance prints of the finger prints which were lifted from the car.
7. Since the employees of Rajiv Aggarwal were kept under surveillance, probably for the reason the police officers thought that possible leads could emerge from suspicious conduct of some employee, conduct of appellant Ashok, also employed as a driver by Rajiv Aggarwal, was found to be suspicious as it was noticed that he was making unnecessary visits to the house, probably to familiarize himself as to what Rajiv Aggarwal and the police were doing. SI Ramesh PW-30, joined the investigation of the case on 20.9.2001
