Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 2172
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, MUKTA GUPTA, JJ.
Dharam Vir & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State - Respondent
Crl.A. 875/2001 & 976/2001
Decided On : 02-06-2016
Mr. Ajay K. Sharma and Ms. Rupali Sharma, Advocates
Mr. Varun Goswami, APP for the State
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for corroboration of the victim's testimony and the need for conclusive evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Headnote:
Kidnapping - Conviction under Sections 364-A/368/344 and Section 392 read with Section 120-B IPC - [IPC] - [Sections 364-A, 368, 344, 392, 120-B] - The court discussed the testimony of the witness, gaps in the victim's story, lack of corroboration, and unreliability of evidence, leading to the benefit of doubt granted to the appellants.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for kidnapping and related offenses based on the testimony of the victim, who claimed to have been kidnapped for ransom. The prosecution's case relied heavily on the victim's testimony and alleged ransom calls.
Finding of the Court:
The court found serious gaps in the victim's testimony, lack of corroboration, and unreliability of evidence, leading to the benefit of doubt granted to the appellants. The judgment of conviction and order on sentence were set aside, and the appellants were granted the benefit of doubt.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the reliability of the victim's testimony, corroboration of evidence, and the prosecution's failure to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for corroboration of the victim's testimony and highlighted the gaps and unreliability of the evidence presented by the prosecution. The benefit of doubt was granted to the appellants due to the lack of conclusive evidence.
Final Decision: The impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence were set aside, and the appellants were granted the benefit of doubt. The appeals were disposed of, and the bail bonds and surety bonds of the appellants were discharged.
Mukta Gupta, J.
1. Vide impugned judgment dated September 29, 2001, Dharam Vir the appellant in Crl.A.875/2001 and Shyam Kumar, his two sons Lokesh Kumar and Manoj Kumar and his wife Anita the appellants in CRL.A.976/2001 were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 364-A/368/344 and Section 392 read with Section 120-B IPC. Vide order on sentence dated October 01, 2001 they were awarded imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 500/- for offence punishable under Section 364-A/120-B IPC, rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with a fine of Rs. 500/- for offence punishable under Section 368/120-B IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and a fine of Rs. 500/- for offence punishable under Section 344/120-B IPC and rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs. 500/- for offence punishable under Section 392/120-B IPC.
2. During the pendency of appeals, appellant No.1 and appellant No.3 in CRL.A.976/2001 i.e. Shyam Kumar and his son Manoj Kumar passed away and thus appeal qua the appellant Nos.1 and 3 stood abated. Thus, in the present appeals we are concerned with the conviction and order on sentence regarding Dharam Vir, Lokesh Kumar and Anita.
3. The prosecution case hinges on the testimony of Bir Kumar Jain @ Sonu PW-8 who claims to have been kidnapped for ransom and his deposition in Court is as under:
“On 22nd February 1996 at about 12/1 PM I was sitting at the shop of my uncle Mahavir Prasad Jain accused Lokesh, who is present in the Court, whom I knew prior to the date of occurrence came to me and asked me to accompany him to Gurgaon as he had to bring sum of Rs. 2 lakhs from there. I had then accompanied him and both of us entered Gurgaon in the vehicle of the accused which was an Esteem. There we took the car to a house in a colony, but I do not know the name of the colony and I accompanied him inside the house. There in that house accused Shyam, who is present in the Court (the witness has correctly identified the accused) and one other person who is not present in the Court today. There Lokesh slapped me and then he put chloroform against my nose and accused Shyam gave me an injection and thereafter I fell unconscious. When I regained consciousness I found myself in a house at Jaipur. There also accused Lokesh, Shyam Kumar and one another were present. They force me to write a letter to my uncle Mahavir Prasad. Ex.PW-8/A is the same letter which was got written by me by the accused persons namely Lokesh, Shyam Kumar and one another person which is addressed to my uncle (Tauji) which is in two sheets. I was also made to write letter Ex.PW-8/B which is addressed to my mother. Both the letters are in my hand and bears my signatures. A demand of ransom was raised in both the letters by way of ransom for releasing me. There at Jaipur I was kept by tieing in chains and the lock used to be put on the chains tied with an iron rods of the window. There used to be some lady in the house but I did not see her. I was kept in Jaipur for a month and thereafter they brought me back to Gurgaon. Even in Gurgaon I was kept in the house where I had initially been taken and there also I was kept confined in a room tied with a chain and there also they forced me to write a letter to my uncle (Tauji) and my mother, again said letters were not got written in Gurgaon, but I was forced to demand money as a ransom money for my release and that was taped in an audio cassette. After 2/4 days i.e. on 3.4.1996 Police reached there. Police brought me to Delhi after untieing me from the chains. On 5.4.1996 I was taken to Jaipur by the Police, where I identified the place where I was kept confined. When I was kept confined in Jaipur by accused Lokesh and Shyam Kumar and one another person, they had taken my diamond ring which I was wearing and they had kept the same with someone in Jaipur. They had also taken my gold chain with pendant and had kept it with someone. On my visit to Jaipur with Police on 5.4.1996, Police had also
