The court emphasized the credibility of witness testimonies and the admissibility of evidence, highlighting that the lack of certain evidence did not weaken the prosecution's case.

G.P. Mittal, J.

1. After having been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) in Sessions Case No. 59/96 arising out of FIR No. 222/95 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, the appellant has approached this Court by way of the instant appeal.

2. The appellant and one Virender Singh (since deceased) faced trial for the earlier said offence for having kidnapped a child Nitin, aged 3½ years and demanded a ransom of Rs. 5 lakh from PW4 (father of the kidnapped child) for release of the child. The complainant (PW4) and his brother Satpal (PW1) were also threatened on telephone that if any information regarding kidnapping of the child was given to the police, the child would be killed.

3. In fact, on 19.05.1995 at about 09:00 p.m., D.D. No. 22 (Ex. PW3/A) was lodged by PW4 regarding missing of the child Nitin. The police, through this D.D., was informed that at about 10:00 am, Nitin aged 3½ years was playing in the street outside his house. After some time, when PW4 looked for the child, he was found missing. Since PW4 did not lay any suspicion with regard to kidnapping of the child, he did not get the FIR registered. Subsequently, on 24.05.1995 at about 08:30 am, he received a telephone call from an unknown person on his land line phone bearing No. 2114254. The caller informed him that the child was in his custody and that if the police was informed about the kidnapping of the child, he (the child) would be killed. A ransom of Rs. 5 lakh was also demanded and the complainant was required to keep the same ready by 25.05.1995. According to the case set up by the prosecution, the complainant got frightened and instead of informing the police about the telephone call, he (PW4) discussed the matter with one of his neighbours (Master Ji) who assured him to get the telephone call taped as he had a known person in the Telephone Exchange. On 26.05.1995 at about 03:50 pm, a telephone call was again received from the same person and PW4 was reminded to arrange the money and to be present at the Railway Station alongwith the ransom money. It is alleged that PW4 alongwith his brother Satpal PW1 remained present at Shahdara Railway Station from 10:30 am to 02:30 pm on 27.05.1995, but they returned as no one contacted them at the Railway Station. It is alleged that on 28.05.1995 at about 07:45 p.m., the kidnapper again called PW4 and asked him to wait for his call on the next day. The complainant PW4 was frightened and therefore, for the first time he made a report Ex. PW4/ A to the police on 30.05.1995 on the basis of which case FIR No. 222/95 was registered.

4. On 02.06.1995, another call was received by PW1 while PW4 was also present in the house. They were informed to reach the Khekra Railway Station with Rs. 5 lakh and to get the child. They were again threatened that if the police is informed, the child would be killed. The complainant passed on this information to S.I. Kuldeep Singh of Special Staff, East District (PW7). A raiding party was organised by SI R.C. Sharma (PW8). PW8 alongwith the complainant, PW7 and other police officials reached Railway Station Khekra. PW4 noticed Virender Singh (co-convict and since deceased) who was working as a compounder with appellant Parkash Chand present there. He (PW4) informed PW8 that Virender Singh (since deceased) was working as a compounder with his brother-in-law Parkash Chand and he might be aware of the whereabouts of the child. Said Virender Singh (since deceased) was intercepted and on interrogation, he informed the police about the kidnapping of the child. A ransom note Ex. PW1/ E was also recovered from the pocket of his shirt. A disclosure statement Ex. PW1/ B was made by him. In pursuance of the disclosure statement, the police party along with the complainant reached the tenanted room of Virender Singh (since deceased) and the kidnapped child was recovered from the appellant’s cust