Back
2018 Supreme(Del) 924
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
PRIYA HARSHVARDHAN - Appellant
Versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI - Respondent
CRL.A. 1458 of 2012, 42 of 2013 & Crl. M.A. No.8419 of 2016
Decided On : 31-01-2018
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Kidnapping and Wrongful Confinement
Act Referred
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.342, S.506, S.385, S.365, S.120(b), S.328, S.506(II), S.340, S.362, S.383
Headnote
Kidnapping - IPC Sections 342/506/385, 365 read with 120-B - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for kidnapping a married woman and wrongfully confining her at various places. The victim was recovered after almost 2 months and 20 days. The prosecution alleged that the victim was administered drugs, wrongfully confined, and criminally intimidated by the appellants.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the victim's voluntary actions, her return with cash and jewelry, and her statement denying any wrongdoing indicated that she had accompanied the accused voluntarily. The court also noted discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence and the victim's testimony, leading to the acquittal of the appellants.
Issues: The key issues were whether the victim was wrongfully confined and whether the accused had kidnapped and extorted the victim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that none of the ingredients of the charged offenses were proved, and the evidence indicated that the victim's actions were voluntary, leading to the acquittal of the appellants.
Final Decision: The appellants were acquitted of all charges, and their bail bonds were cancelled and surety discharged.
For the Appellant : Mr. Kulwant Saroop, Adv.
For the Respondent: Ms. Neelam Sharma, APP.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
1. The appellants have impugned the judgment and order on sentence dated 26.10.2012 and 03.11.2012 respectively wherein the appellants stood convicted and thereafter sentenced. Appellant Rakesh Singh had been convicted under Sections 342/506/385 as also Section 365 read with Section 120-B of the IPC. He had been acquitted of the offence under Section 328 of the IPC. He had been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of six years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-and in default of payment of fine, to undergo RI for a period of six months for the offence under Section 365 read with Section 120-B. For offence under Section 342 of the IPC, he had been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year. For offence under Section 506-II of the IPC, he had been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of five years. For offence under Section 385 of the IPC, he had been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of two years.
2. Convict Priya Harshvardhan had been convicted under Section 365 read with Section 120-B of the IPC. He had been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-and in default of payment of fine to undergo RI for a period of six months. Benefits of Section 428 of the Cr.PC have been granted to both the convicts.
3. Both the appellants are on bail. Nominal roll of appellant Rakesh Singh reflects that he had undergone incarceration of 3-½ years before he was released on bail. Accused Priya Harshvardhan had undergone incarceration of 2-½ months before he was released on bail.
4. The version of the prosecution is that on 11.11.2008 at 12:30 in the afternoon, accused persons in furtherance of their common intention and in terms of common object of their conspiracy had abducted the victim H Kaur (aged 33 years) (PW-1). This was from outside her house bearing No. 12, Road No. 73, West Punjabi Bagh, Delhi. The fact that H Kaur was a married lady having two children and married to one Amardeep is an admitted position. The lady was finally recovered from Siliguri, Assam on 01.02.2009 i.e. after a gap of almost 2 months & 20 days. Further allegations of the prosecution were that the victim had been administered drugs by mixing them in water with an intent to wrongfully confine her at various places including Naraina, Delhi, Deemapur, Assam as also Siliguri, West Bengal. The accused persons had also criminally intimidated her and wrongfully confined her threatening her to cause harm to her. Accused Rakesh Singh used to keep a knife with him which was the source of intimidation to the victim. Prima-facie charges of extortion were also levelled against the accused persons.
5. Further version of the prosecution is that accused Rakesh Singh used to work as electrician in the house of the victim and often used to go to her house. He had become friendly with the elder son of the victim. The husband of the victim was unhappy with this friendship that Rakesh Singh shared with his family and often there used to be a quarrel on this count. Accused Priya Harshvardhan was a friend of Rakesh.
6. 15 witnesses were examined by the prosecution of whom the star witness of the prosecution was victim herself who was examined as PW-2. Her brother who had lodged the complaint pursuant to which the recovery of the victim had been effected on 01.02.2009 from Siliguri, West Bengal was examined as PW-1. Investigating Officer M.N Vijayan (PW-10) was accompanied by constable Umesh Tiwari (PW-3) who had gone to Siliguri where the victim had been recovered. Their testimony has been highlighted. Testimony of PW-7 (Mohd. Babu Hazarika) a driver working in Siliguri has also been brought to the fore.
7. In the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant submits that this is a clear case where the question of any of the charges for which the appellants have been convicted cannot be sustained. The victim is an adult lady being more than 33 years of age and having two children. She had voluntarily accompan
