Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
Sanjiv Khanna, S.P.Garg, JJ.
Mohd.Wasim - Appellant
Versus
State - Resopndent
Criminal Appeal No. 1008 of 2011, Criminal Appeal No. 1180 of 2011, Criminal Appeal No. 1245 of 2011
Decided On : 12-10-2012
KIDNAPPING - RANSOM - EVIDENCE - CHILD WITNESS - IDENTIFICATION - CORROBORATION - INVESTIGATION - LAPSES - CONVICTION - MAINTAINED.
Fact of the Case:
Mohd. Shahanwaz @ Tarik, Mohd. Wasim and Mohd Tanveer were convicted for kidnapping a child, Himanshu, for ransom. The child was rescued and the accused were arrested. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 364A/34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The accused appealed against the conviction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The court relied on the testimony of the child victim, his father, maternal grandfather, and friend, as well as the police officers who had conducted the raid and rescued the child. The court also relied on the testimony of the PCO operator and the parking assistant who had seen the accused in the area where the child was kidnapped.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 2. Whether the child victim's testimony was reliable. 3. Whether the police investigation was proper.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The court relied on the testimony of the child victim, his father, maternal grandfather, and friend, as well as the police officers who had conducted the raid and rescued the child. The court also relied on the testimony of the PCO operator and the parking assistant who had seen the accused in the area where the child was kidnapped. 2. The court held that the child victim's testimony was reliable. The court noted that the child was able to identify the accused and provide details of the kidnapping. The court also noted that the child's testimony was corroborated by the testimony of the other witnesses. 3. The court held that the police investigation was proper. The court noted that the police had conducted a thorough investigation and had collected sufficient evidence to prove the case against the accused.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals and upheld the conviction and sentence of the accused.
Sanjiv Khanna, J.:—
Mohd. Shahanwaz @ Tarik, Mohd. Wasim and Mohd Tanveer have preferred these three appeals against the common judgment dated 21st July 2011, passed by the Sessions Court in Case No. 125/2006. The three appellants have been sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 364A/34 IPC (Indian Penal Code, 1860) for kidnapping of Master Himanshu, aged 11 years, from West Patel Nagar, Delhi. Under Section 357 Cr.P.C. the victim has been awarded compensation of Rs 2 lac. In the same judgment, Mohd. Taqi, Rehana and Kamaal Ahmed have been acquitted. The State has not filed any appeal against the said acquittal.
2. The prosecution case is that Himanshu (PW-2) had come from Ludhiana to visit his maternal grandfather Khairati Lal (PW-3) in West Patel Nagar, New Delhi for his vacations. On 28th March 2006, at about 4.30 P.M. when he had gone to play at the rock garden, he was allegedly kidnapped for ransom by the three accused- Mohd. Wasim, Mohd. Shahanwaz @ Tarik and Mohd. Tanveer. Subsequently, ransom call was made to Mr. Vipin Ahuja (PW-1), victim’s father, and Rs 25 lacs were demanded for his release. The victim was allegedly kept in various places till he was finally rescued in the intervening night of 28th/29th March, 2006.
3. In order to appreciate the evidence better, witnesses produced by the prosecution can be divided into three categories. Firstly, we have witnesses Vipin Ahuja (PW-1) father of Himanshu, Himanshu (PW-2) the victim of kidnapping himself, Khairati Lal (PW-3) maternal grandfather of Himanshu and Master Jai (PW-7) friend of Himanshu. These are material public witnesses. Second category of witnesses is the police officers, who were members of the raiding party and had rescued Himanshu (PW-2). These are Constable Renu (PW-4), Head Constable Labh Singh (PW-8), SI R.S. Meena (PW-12) the Investigating Officer, Constable Harmeet Singh (PW-13) and Head Constable Mahesh (PW-14). In addition to the aforesaid two set of witnesses, we have Vishnu Pratap (PW-5) Parking Assistant, R.K. Singh (PW-6) Nodal Officer of Bharti Airtel Limited, Rama Bajaj (PW-10) PCO Operator and two official witnesses Constable Vinod (PW-9) and Inspector Shambhu Dayal (PW-11).
4. There is ample, incontrovertible evidence that Himanshu (PW-2), then aged about 11 years, was staying with his maternal grandfather Khairati Lal (PW-3) in West Patel Nagar, Delhi on the date of occurrence i.e., 28th March, 2006. According to PW-3, on the said date, Himanshu had gone outside the house to play with Jai, another small boy living in the neighbourhood. Jai returned at 5.45 P.M. but without Himanshu. Khairati Lal (PW-3) made enquiry from Jai about Himanshu. Jai revealed that initially Himanshu was with him, at the rock garden, but had left after some time. Since Himanshu did not return home, till around 8.15/8.30 P.M., PW-3, the maternal grandfather, called the police on No. 100. The PCR van left the house assuring that the local police would be informed and requested the family to communicate with the police in case Himanshu returns. In the cross-examination PW-3 has stated that Himanshu had left with Jai to play at about 4.30 P.M. Himanshu (PW-2) in his statement has affirmed the said facts i.e. that he had gone to play in the garden with Jai, at around 4.30 P.M. on 28th March, 2006. Jai, who appeared as PW-7, has stated that Himanshu was almost of his age and he knew Himanshu since his relatives were living on the ground floor of the same house, where he was residing on the second floor. He had gone to the rock garden, to play with Himanshu, at about 4.30 P.M. on 28th March, 2006. Himanshu remained with him for some time but thereafter disappeared. He thought that Himanshu had probably gone back to his house. However, at about 5.45 P.M., when Jai returned to his house, he came to know that Himanshu had not returned.
5. On the question of abduction and kidnapping of Himanshu, we have referred to the statement of
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
