Crl.A.Nos.513/01, 300/02 & 301/02 Page 1 of 15

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

%

Date of Decision : 14.05.2009

+

CRL.A. 513/2001

AVDESH

…Appellant

Through: Mr.Sumeet Verma, Advocate.

versus

STATE

…Respondent

Through: Mr. Pawan Sharma, Advocate

CRL.A. 300/2002

VIDHYA LAL

…Appellant

Through: Ms.Padma Priya, Advocate.

versus

STATE

…Respondent

Through: Mr. Pawan Sharma, Advocate

CRL.A. 301/2002

SANTOSH PANDEY

…Appellant

Through: Mr.V.K.Raina, Advocate.

versus

STATE

…Respondent

Through: Mr. Pawan Sharma, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR KOCHHAR

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed

to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?

2009:DHC:2093-DB

Crl.A.Nos.513/01, 300/02 & 301/02 Page 2 of 15

: PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (ORAL)

1.

We notice that the counsel nominated by the Legal

Services Authority for appellant Vidhya Lal has not been

appearing in the instant matter which has remained on Board

for the last four days to await representation from his counsel,

we had requested Ms.Padma Priya, Advocate to assist us for

appellant Vidhya Lal. We formally appoint her as Amicus

Curiae for appellant Vidhya Lal and fix her fee at Rs.5,000/-.

Noting that Mr.Sumeet Verma was appointed Amicus Curiae

vide order dated 18.7.2003 in Crl.Appeal No.513/2001 and his

fee has not been fixed at yet, we fix his fee at Rs.5,000/-.

2.

Vide

impugned

judgment

and

order

dated

30.1.2001, the appellants have been convicted for the offence

of having entered into a conspiracy to kidnap for ransom

Master Ashish as also for the offence of having kidnapped for

ransom Master Ashish and demanded ransom for his release.

For both offences, sentence imposed upon the appellants is to

undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine in sum of

Rs.15,000/- each (for each offence); in default of payment of

fine, to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years.

3.

Co-accused Choukat and Ramesh Pandey have

been acquitted.

2009:DHC:2093-DB

Crl.A.Nos.513/01, 300/02 & 301/02 Page 3 of 15

4.

The incriminating circumstances held established

by the learned Trial Judge against the appellants are:-

(a)

Accused Santosh Pandey. In view of the testimony

of Surya Pratap Singh PW-2 it has been held that it

stood established that on 7.7.1995 at about 10.30 AM

the kidnapped child Master Ashish was seen being

taken away by Santosh. The second incriminating

circumstance

against

accused

Santosh

is

his

absconding from the tenanted premises on 7.7.1995

as deposed by his landlord Ratti Ram Sharma PW-6.

Lastly, the report Ex.PW-14/A of the handwriting

expert, as per which the suspect writings Q-6, Q-7 and

Q-9 were opined to be in the handwriting of Santosh;

the comparison being with reference to the specimen

writings of Santosh S-15 to S-26. The suspect writings

Q-6 and Q-9 are ransom notes received by the father

of the kidnapped child. The suspect writing Q-7 is a

ransom note.

(b)

Accused Vidhya Lal. The incriminating evidence

against accused Vidhya Lal is the report Ex.PW-14/A of

the handwriting expert as per which the suspect

writings Q-1, Q-2 and Q-5 were opined to be in the

handwriting of Vidhya Lal; the comparison being with

2009:DHC:2093-DB

Crl.A.Nos.513/01, 300/02 & 301/02 Page 4 of 15

reference to the specimen writing S-1 to S-14. The

suspect writings Q-1 and Q-2 are the ransom notes

received by the father of the kidnapped child. The

suspect writing Q-5 is the writing on the postal

envelope in which ransom notes were sent.

(c)

Accused Avdesh. The evidence against accused