R.S. Sodhi, J.@mdashPramod challenges the order of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 48/2001 whereby the learned Judge vide judgment dated 5.10.2001 has held the appellant guilty u/s 364A IPC and further by his order dated 11.10.2001 sentencing the appellant to imprisonment for life and fine of Crl.A.No. 323/2002 page 1 of 6 Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further RI for one month. The facts as have been noted by the Additional District and Sessions Judge is as under:
Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 25.12.2000 at about 11.30 a.m. the accused who was living as tenant in the house of Kimti Lal kidnapped his child Mickey on the pretext of giving biscuit to him and, Therefore, the accused made a telephone call to the wife of Kimti Lal to pay him Rs. one lakh if they wanted their child to be released by him. He asked him to bring the money at the New Delhi Railway Station. Kimti Lal informed the police and he along with the police went to New Delhi Railway Station. The child was recovered from him.
2. The prosecution in order to establish the case examined as many as nine witnesses. Of these PW 1 is Kimti Lal. Kimti Lal states that he was living at NA-87, Vishnu Garden, Delhi and was working as packer. On 25.12.2000 he had let out a room on the third floor of his house to the accused Pramod. On that day while witness was having breakfast, Pramod came and took the child Mickey who was seven months old from his wife Rajni in order to feed him some biscuits. The witness at 11.30 a.m. went to his office, but returned within ten minutes and found that Mickey was not at home. He searched for the accused and his son at the kiryana shops near the house and also went to the house of the uncle of the accused, but did not find him there. In the meantime his wife Rajni received telephone call from Pramod demanding a sum of Rs. One lakh for Crl.A.No. 323/2002 page 2 of 6 the release of his son Mickey from the New Delhi Railway Station. His wife conveyed this information to the cousin of Kimti Lal, Pradeep. Upon which Pradeep informed the PCR. Police came to the house and recorded the statement of Kimti Lal, Ex.PW1/A. The witness goes on to say that he accompanied the Police to the railway station where they searched for the child. At about 7.30 p.m. accused was apprehended along with child Mickey from a park between parking bus terminal Ajmeri Gate side. In cross-examination, it was sought to be put to the witness that the accused had received Rs. fifty thousand as compensation from his employee Sardar Sonu of Gali No. 7, Vishnu Garden, Delhi. But this suggestion was denied by the witness. He also denied the suggestion that the amount was kept with him which was not being returned to the accused and, on this account the accused has been falsely implicated in this case.
3. The next witness is PW-2 Smt. Rajni who states that on 25.12.2000 at about 11.00 a.m. accused Pramod came and took the child Mickey from her for feeding him biscuits. Witness had told Pramod to return the child soon as he was yet to be given a bath. The accused did not returned till 12 noon. Search was in progress when she received a telephone call from the accused demanding ransom of Rs. One lakh for the release of Mickey .This information was given to Pradeep who informed the PCR and Police came to the house. Crl.A.No. 323/2002 page 3 of 6 Another phone call was received at 2.30 p.m. repeating the same demand. The witness goes on to say that at 9.00 p.m. her husband brought the child home, after he was recovered from the accused from New Delhi Railway Station. This witness was cross-examined to the effect that a sum of Rs. fifty thousand which was received as compensation by the accused was entrusted to them which was not returned and, Therefore, a false case has been filed against the accused. The other witnesses are those of procedure except for PW-6 who corroborates the statement of PW-1 and PW-2.
4. PW-9 Vijay Pal, Investigating Officer narrates the manner in which he conducted the investigation and recovered the child at about 8.30 p.m. from New Delhi Railway Station from Pramod. At that time was he was along with Constable Sohan Ram and complainant Kimti Lal. According to the witness complainant identified his son Mickey who was held by the accused Pramod. Pramod was arrested and personal search conducted. Custody of Mickey was handed over to the father vide Ext.PW1/F. In cross-examination it was elicited from this witness that two raiding parties were formed, one was sent to Old Delhi Railway Station and another one to New Delhi Railway Station. One sent to New Delhi Railway Station consisted of three persons including father of the kidnapped child and a constable. They went to the station and found toward the side of Ajmeri Gate Crl.A.No. 323/2002 page 4 of 6 accused with the child present. According to this witness, the child was sent to his house with his father without taking him to the police station as the mother of the child was very upset. Under 313 Cr.P.C. statement appellant reiterated innocence and alleged that he had been lifted from New Delhi Railway Station when he was going to his house at Bihar.
5. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that a story put forward by the prosecution does not appear to be plausible. Since, according to the learned Counsel such an action is far to simplistic and cannot be believed. He also contends that appellant had been falsely implicated on account of an amount of Rs. fifty thousand which was deposited with the complainant who has not returned the same and, Therefore, got him implicated in this false case. We have carefully examined the case and find that the submissions made by the counsel for the accused are not sustainable from the record of the case. There is clear cut evidence on record of PW-1 and PW-2 as also PW-5 who corroborates each other and narrate the incident of child having been taken away by Pramod and also ransom calls received by PW-2 at 1.00 p.m. and later in the afternoon. Further, it was PW-5 who contacted the PCR on which the Police went into action and recovered the child from the New Delhi Railway Station from the accused. There is evidence on record to the effect that Crl.A.No. 323/2002 page 5 of 6 Pramod had taken the child from PW-2 on the pretext of feeding biscuits and then demanded a ransom for the return of the child coupled with the fact that child was recovered form accused leaves no manner of doubt that accused is guilty of the offence of 364A IPC. We also find from the judgment of the trial court that trial court has given adequate reasons and discussed the evidence on record before returning the findings of guilt of the accused. We find no fault with the judgment of the trial court. In that view of the matter we uphold the judgment of conviction and order of sentence.
6. The appeal is dismissed.
