Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 1197
High Court of Delhi
V.K. JAIN
Kishore Kumar & Others
Versus
State Govt. of NCT
CRL.A. Nos. 586, 644, 651 & 835 of 2013 485 of 2014
Decided On : 28-04-2014
For the Appellants:Vivek Sood, Azhar Qayum, Azhar Qayum, Kishor Kumar, J.S. Kushwaha, Anita, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of IPC provisions related to kidnapping, wrongful confinement, and conspiracy, and the importance of ensuring fair trial principles, including legal representation for the accused.
Headnote:
Kidnapping - IPC - Section 363, 365, 366A, 368, 372, 373, 120B - The judgment discusses the involvement of the accused in the kidnapping and wrongful confinement of a minor girl, the evidence presented, and the legal provisions under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) that were applied in convicting the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the kidnapping and wrongful confinement of a 9-year-old girl, who was taken to different locations and subjected to abuse by multiple individuals. The accused were charged under various sections of the IPC, and the prosecution presented evidence including witness testimonies and the statement of the kidnapped child.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty of kidnapping, wrongful confinement, and conspiracy under the IPC based on the testimonies of the kidnapped child and other witnesses. The court also highlighted the failure to provide legal representation to one of the accused during the trial, leading to a remand for further proceedings.
Issues: The key issues included the involvement of the accused in the kidnapping, the credibility of witness testimonies, and the application of legal provisions related to kidnapping and wrongful confinement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the testimonies of the kidnapped child and other witnesses to establish the guilt of the accused. Additionally, the court emphasized the importance of providing legal representation to the accused during the trial, highlighting a violation of fair trial principles.
Final Decision: The accused were convicted and sentenced under various sections of the IPC for their involvement in the kidnapping and wrongful confinement of the minor girl. One of the accused was remanded for further proceedings due to the lack of legal representation during the trial.
V.K. JAIN, J.
1. On 23.4.2009, Smt. Sunderwati came to Police Station Sultanpuri and reported that her grand-daughter, aged about 9 years, had gone to play outside her house bearing No.A1/154, Sultanpuri, Delhi, after coming back from the school and had not returned home. She suspected that some unknown persons had kidnapped her grand-daughter. An FIR under Section 363 of IPC was registered on the basis of the aforesaid report and efforts were made to trace the child. The Investigating Officer came to know that the child was last seen with the appellant Bimla who was found missing from her house. On 17.7.2009, some residents of A-Block of Sultanpuri complained that Bimla and Mukesh had a hand in kidnapping of girls from the aforesaid locality. Section 365 of IPC was thereafter added in the FIR. On 28.7.2009, Bimla surrendered in the court.
2. On 9.5.2010, an information was received that ATS (West) had arrested Ashok @ Pappu, Shyamlal, Veena and Mangal who had confessed with respect to their involvement in the kidnapping and the kidnapped girl had been recovered from them.
The statement of the missing girl was recorded before a Metropolitan Magistrate wherein she alleged that Bimla had taken her to Mukesh and Kartar and thereafter she was taken to Manesar and handed over to Kishore and Anita who had left her in Girwas. The case of the prosecution is that the girl child was handed over to Mangal for Rs.20,000/- by one Shyamlal who had paid Rs.15,000/- to Mukesh and Kartar.
3. After completion of investigation as many as seven (7) persons were chargesheeted under Sections 363/366A/365/368/372/373 of IPC read with Sections 34 and 120B thereof. The accused Bimla, Mukesh and Kartar were charged by the Court under Section 120B of IPC read with Sections 366A/367/372 thereof, Kishore and Anita were charged under Section 120B of IPC and under Section 368 of IPC read with Section 120B thereof whereas Shyamlal was charged under Section 120B of IPC read with Section 372 thereof. Mangal was charged under Section 120B read with Section 368 & 373 thereof. Since the accused persons pleaded not guilty, as many as eighteen (18) witnesses were examined by the prosecution. No witness, however, was examined in defence.
4. The kidnapped child aged about 9 years was examined as PW8 and she inter alia stated that on 23.4.2009 at about 1:00 p.m. while she was playing outside her house, Bimla came near her and asked her to accompany her to a doctor’s shop. She thereupon accompanied her. Bimla took her to the house of Mukesh and Kartar. From there, Mukesh and Kartar went away in a car whereas she was taken in an autorickshaw after Bimla had wrapped her in a saree. Bimla then made her sit in the car of Mukesh and Kartar and sat along with her. After covering some distance, Bimla, who was carrying a big bag in her hand, left saying that she was going to fetch her clothes. Mukesh and Kartar took her to Manesar where they left her with Anita and Kishore, who took her to Village Girwas. In the said village Anita and Kishore used to beat her up and thereafter they left her at the house of Shyamlal, who, in turn, left her at the house of Mangal. She further stated that the aforesaid persons used to beat her and that the police raided the aforesaid place and rescued three (3) girls including her. She identified the accused persons who were present in the Court at the time she was examined.
5. PW5 Sandhya is the elder sister of PW8. She inter alia stated that on 23.4.2009, PW8 was playing outside the house and she (the witness) could see her since the curtain was half open. She claimed that Bimla asked PW8 to accompany her, whereupon she left with her, despite her (witness) asking PW8 to stop. According to the witness after about 4-5 hours she met Bimla and enquired about her sister. Bimla, however, abused her and threatened to give her a beating. She also identified the accused Bimla.
PW2 Smt. Sunderwati is the complainant in this case. She inter a
