Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 5996
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ.
Joginder Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State & Anr. - Respondents
Cr.A. 1220 of 2019, Cr.L.P. 106 of 2020 and Cr.L.P. 433 of 2023 & Cr.M.A. 23042 of 2023
Decided On : 19-09-2023
Mr.Kunal Malhotra, Advocate (DHCLSC) with Mr.Ravinder Gaur, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Mr.Tarang Srivastava, APP, for the State/R-1.
Mr.M.L.Yadav, Advocate, for R-2.
Mr.Tarang Srivastava, APP for the State with Inspector Praveen Kumar, P.S.Jyoti Nagar, for the Petitioner.
Mr. M.L.Yadav, Advocate for R-1. Mr. Prateek and Mr. Sushil Kumar, Advocate for R-2.
Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP for the State with Inspector Praveen Kumar, P.S. Jyoti Nagar.
Mr.C.M. Grover, Advocate, for the Respondent.
IMPORTANT POINT
The need for consistent and conclusive evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Headnote:
Acquittal - Kidnapping - CrPC 372, IPC 363, 364A, 120B
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the kidnapping of a child and subsequent recovery. The accused were charged under various sections of the IPC. The prosecution's case relied on witness testimonies, ransom calls, and recovered documents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found inconsistencies in the victim's testimony and lack of conclusive evidence linking the accused to the ransom calls. The accused were acquitted based on the lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: Inconsistencies in witness testimonies, lack of conclusive evidence for ransom calls, and recovery of documents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for consistent and conclusive evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Inconsistencies in witness testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence led to the acquittal of the accused.
Final Decision: The Appeal and Leave to Appeal petitions were dismissed, and the accused were acquitted of all charges.
JUDGMENT (Oral)
1. Crl.A.1220/2019 has been filed by the appellant Joginder Kumar (Complainant in FIR), father of the victim-child under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, "CrPC") against the impugned Judgment dated 07.05.2019 of the learned Judge, Special Court (POCSO Act) by which the accused-respondent No. 2 Monu @ Kundu was acquitted for the offences charged under Sections 363, 364A & 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, "IPC").
2. Crl.Leave Petition Nos.106/2020 and 433/2023 have been preferred by the State by which the State has sought Leave to Appeal against the impugned Judgments dated 13.05.2019 and 07.05.2019 respectively, by which the accused namely Monu @ Kundu and Sonu (respondents in Crl.L.P.106/2020) have been acquitted for the offences under Sections 363/364A/120B IPC and Vikas @ Vicky (respondent in Crl.L.P.433/2023) though found guilty for the offence under Section 363 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.30,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment of 6 months. However, they were acquitted for the offences under Sections 364A/120B IPC.
3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 04.11.2011, a child Harsh @ Nonu aged 5 years, son of appellant (in Crl.A.1220/2019) was kidnapped while he was playing on the road outside his house, at about 5 PM in the evening by some unknown persons. Subsequently, on the statement of the father of the child, the FIR No. 434/2011 under Section 363 IPC was registered at Police Station Jyoti Nagar. On 05.11.2011, a call from a MCD Booth was received informing that his son was in captivity and a sum of Rs.25 lakhs was demanded as ransom for the release of his son. On 06.11.2011, an information was received by the police official from Police Station Baghpat that one child has been recovered from the village Hamidabad, U.P. The police official and the complainant met them at the spot and recovered the child. The MLC of the child was conducted and marks of rope on his neck were found aside from other injuries and abrasions. The witness PW-9 Salamu disclosed that the child was kidnapped by the accused Vicky @ Vikas and respondent No. 2 Monu @ Kundu (in Crl.A.1220/2019) tied the victim child by a rope around the neck and left him at the sugarcane field. Further evidence was collected and the statement of the child Harsh @ Nonu was recorded who stated that it was Vikas @ Vicky who along with his friends had taken him on a motorcycle and after entering into Baghpat, accused Monu @ Kundu had tied him, and he had become unconscious. On regaining consciousness, he went to a village in Baghpat.
4. The police after completion of investigation, filed the Charge Sheet against the accused Vikas @ Vicky, Monu @ Kundu and Sonu under Sections 120B/363/364A IPC for being involved in the conspiracy to kidnap the child and for making ransom call. The Charges were framed against all the three the accused on 23.04.2012 under Sections 120B, 363/120B and 364A/120B IPC who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. Statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, who claimed that they were falsely implicated in the present case.
6. The statements of 15 prosecution witnesses were recorded and the Learned ASJ vide the Judgment dated 07.05.2019 convicted the accused Vikas @ Vicky under Section 363 IPC while the other two accused i.e. Monu @ Kundu and Sonu were acquitted of the charges for the offences under Sections 363/364A/120B IPC.
7. Aggrieved by the said acquittal of the two accused i.e. Monu @ Kundu and Sonu for the offences under Sections 363/364A/120B IPC and acquittal of accused Vikas @ Vicky for the offence under Section 364A/120B IPC, the Appeal and the Criminal Leave Petitions have been preferred by father of the child and the State, respectively.
8. The grounds pleaded in the Appeal and Leave to Appeal are that the testimony of the complainant and of the child who were throughout consistent, have no
