Prem Chand @ Fauzi v. State

G. S. SISTANI, J. For judgment, see Crl.A. 1492/2013. 25''^ FEBRUARY,2016 •-J".

G. S. SISTANI, J. SANGITA'DHINGy^ SEHGAL, J Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. IN THE HIGHCOURTOF DELHIAT NEWDELHI + CRL.A.N0.1492/1^ Judgmentreservedon 24^''November,2015 Judgmentdeliveredon^%bruary,2016 VINOD@V^ODE@BHOLE ...Appellant Through: Mr.PraveenKumar,Advocate Versus STATE Tu ..r ^ ... Respondent Through: Mr.FerozKhan Ghazi,APP for the State + CRL.A.N0.182/2014 PREMCHA®@FAUZI ...Appellant Through: Mr.NeerajBhardwaj,Advocate Versus STATE ...Respondent Through: Mr.FerozKhan Ghazi,APP for the State + CRL.A.N0.1595/2ni3 ASHOKKUMAR ...Appellant Through: Mr.HabiburRehman,Advocate Versus STATE Respondent Through: Mr.FerozKhanGhazi,APP for the State CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL G. S. SISTANL J.

¶1Since the presentappeals arise out ofa commonjudgmentand order on sentence, the same have been heard together and disposed of by a common judgment. Crl.ANos. 1492/13 182/2014 1595/2013 Page fof30 !

2.

¶3Present appeals arise out of a judgment dated 20.07.2013 and order on convictiondated30.08.2013passedby learnedAdditionalSessionsJudge, Delhi, by which the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishableunder Section 120B of the IndianPenal Code, under Section 368 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, under Section344 of the IndianPenal Code read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, under Section 347 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them as under: Offence under Section Punishment Section of the Indian Penal Code Rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisomnent for one month. Section of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 120 of the Indian Penal Code Rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Section of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 120 of the Indian Penal Code Rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Section of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 120 of the Indian Penal Code Rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 120 of the Indian Penal Code Life imprisonmentfor two years and to pay fine Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. All the sentencesshallrunconcurrently The case of the prosecutionas noticed by the learnedTrial Court is as under: CrL A Nos. 1492/13 182/2014 1595/2013 Page 2 of30 "Factual matrix of the prosecution case is that on 16.09.2007 Mahipal(PWl) visitedPSNewAshokNagarandcomplainedabout missingofhis brotherAjay (PW5) and neighbourRavinderKumar

(PW6) since 13.09.2007. Hefurthertold that he and relativesof PW6 had been receivingransom calls. Ins. Arun Kumar (PW16) prepared rukka and got FIR registered under Section 364A IPC. Call detail records (CDRs) ofmobile No. 9871276142belongto victimRavinderandphoneNo. 9971427767belongingto Ajaywere analyzed. Number9997436407wasfoundas suspectnumber. On the basis of analysis of CDRs, it was found that victims were somewherein the area ofDistrictFerozabad, UP. On 01.10.2007, PWl6alongwith Insp. Ram Kishore (PWl5) reachedat the office of SSP, Ferozabadandfrom local intelligence,he came to know that the gang of accused Vinod is involvedin such activities. On

04.10.2007, PWl6 with otherpolice staffs reachedPS-Matsena, DistrictFerozabad,UP andtherehe metSO K. K. Mishra(PWl9). Astrategy was plannedfor launchingcombing operation in the area and various teams were constituted. The area was searched nextday in the afternoon. PWl9receivedasecretinformationthat apersonnamed Vinodis standingnearSikeraMata Mandirand is waitingfor someone and he has been beholdingtwo persons of Delhi. Team ofPWl6reachedat SikeraMata Mandirand on the pointingout ofinformer, accused Vinodwas apprehended From hispossession,one mobilephonebelongingto Ravinder(PW6) was recovered During interrogation,accused Vinod made disclosure statementand ledpoliceparty to Beeharat a distanceof FA - 2 kilometersfrom that place. There two victims i.e Ajay and Ravinder (PW5 and PW6) werefound lying on the groundwith theirfeet tiedwith rope and theireyes were tiedwith 'angochhas'. Associates of accused Vinod managed to run away Both the victims were in bad shape as they had lost their weight, wearing dirty clothesand appearnot to have shavedfor 20-25 days. Both the victimswere broughtto Delhi. On 12.12.2007,PWl7received informationthat accusedPrem Chand@Fauzi has been arrested by thepoliceofPSMakhanpur,DistrictFerozabad,UP. He sought his production warrant and got him produced in the court on ^5.12.2007. AccusedPrem Chandwas arrestedin this case. After investigationpolicefiledfirstchargesheetagainstboth the accused under section 364A/34IPC. f• . investigationofthiscasewas assigned to ASI Rajender Singh (PWl8). On 23.04.2009, he moved an CrI. ANos. 1492/13 182/2014 1595/2013 Page 3 of30 applicationfor productionwarrant accused Ashok, who was in judicialcustody. On 27.04.2009,accusedAshok was arrestedin this case. Effortswere made to arrestotheraccusedbut they could not be arrestedandtheyweregotdeclaredasproclaimedoffenders

(Pos). Policefiled supplementarychargesheetagainst accused Ashok Kumar and other co-accused-by showing them as ProclaimedOffenders. Supplementarychargesheethas beenfiled under Section 364A/344/34 IPG. "

¶4Learned Counsel for the appellantssubmit that the impugnedjudgment and order on sentenceis based on conjecturesand surmisesand the trial Courthas erredin reachingaconclusionofguiltagainstthe appellants. It is stronglyurged beforethis Court that there are materialinconsistencies between the testimonies of the witnesses. The learned Trial Court has failed to take into account that as per the prosecutionthe victims were recovered on 05.10.2007, however, as per the complainantPWl, the victims were recoveredon 04.10.2007. It is further contendedthat there are material contradictionswith regard to the date when the alleged ransom letter was received. Counsel contend that as per PWl ransom letterwas receivedon 21.09.2007while accordingto PW2 ransom letter was receivedon 18.09.2007,whereasas per InvestigatingOfficer,PWl5, ransom letter was handed over to him on 20.09.2007.

¶5Learned counsel for the appellant Vinod submits that the recoveries, which have been made at his instance i.e. mobile phone, rope and angochhastated to have been recoveredby the police at the instanceof accused Vinod were not sealed and hence can not be relied upon in evidencebroughton recordby the prosecutionthat mobilephones which as perprosecutionPW5 and PW6 were carryingactuallybelongedto him. Itis furthercontendedby learnedcounselfor appellantVinodthatthereis no evidence to show that mobile phones which PW5 & PW6 were carrying actually belongedto them. It is also contendedthat there are Crl.ANos. 1492/13 182/2014 1595/2013 Page4of30 material contradictions regarding as to whether PW5 & PW6 were taken to Police Station Matsena or directly brought to Delhi immediatelyafter they were rescued. It is pointed out that as per the testimony of PW19, victims PW5 & PW6 and the accusedperson were not broughtto Police Station Matsena whereas as per PW5 and PW6 after they were rescued they were taken to Police Station Matsena, however, in the testimony of PW15 and PW16, who were mainly involved in the rescue operation, deposed that after the victims were rescued, they along with the accused Vinod were brought to Delhi. According to learned counsel for the appellant Vinod, this major contradiction creates serious doubt in the story of the prosecution.

¶6It is also pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant Vinod that the learned Trial Court has failed to consider that in the first disclosure statement, Ex.PW3/B, made by appellant Vinod, when he was initially apprehended by the police, he did not name the other two co-accused persons i.e. Prem Chand @ Fauzi and Ashok Kumar. It is, however, pointed out that the aforesaid two names were incorporated in the second disclosure statement which according to the appellant Vinod was fabricated to implicate them. Counsel contends that in case the other two appellants, namely, Prem Chand @ Fauzi and Ashok were in any way connected with the offence, they should have been named in the first disclosure statement made by Vinod.

¶7It is also pointed out by the counsel for the appellant that in the entire case not a single independent witness was associated in the investigation and only family members of the victims, who were interested witnesses deposed against them. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned Trial Court has failed to take into account that PW5 was lodged in Tihar Jail in a robbeiy and murder case along with appellant Ashok Crl. A Nos. 1492/13 182/2014 1595/2013 Kumar, and on accountof enmity between appellantAshok Kumar and PW5, AppellantAshokKumarwas falselyimplicatedin the case.

¶8Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the entire manner of the investigationofthe presentcase would come undera doubt as despite the statementmade that victimswere beatendaily, enoughfood were not provided,they were tied with chainsfor 22 days long and no MLC of the victims were got prepared thus the testimony of the victims can not be relied upon. If there was any truth in the story of the prosecution,the bodiesof the victimswouldhave ligaturemarks,rashesand injuries.

¶9Learned counsel for the appellant Ahsok Kumar and Prem Chand submit that no recoveries were made at their instance.

¶10Learned counsel for the appellantVinod has submittedthat appellanthas been falsely implicated in the present case as he was arrested on

04.10.2007by the investigatingteam from SubziMandi withoutassigning any reasons. In support of this contention, it is pointed out that brother of the appellantVinod in view of the illegalarrest has telegraphedto SSP, DIG on 05.10.2007 informing them about illegal arrest of Vinod, his brother.

¶11On the other hand, learnedcounselfor the State submitsthat prosecution has been able to prove its case withoutany shadow of doubt. It is further submittedthat the ransom letterwas sent to ForensicScienceLaboratory and report has been received which reveals that the ransom letter contained the handwriting of the victim as well as of accused Vinod. It is also contended that repeated calls were made and letters were sent for ransom and based on secret information,first Vinod was arrested,who led the police party to the jungle wherethe victimswere recovered. It is also submittedthatthe victimshave rightlypointedtowardsthe appellantsand their testimoniesare consistentwith regard to the manner in which they Crl. ANos. 1492/13 182/2014 1595/2013 Page 6 of30 were abductedby the appellantAshok Kumar and then handed over to appellantPrem Chand @Fauzi and Vinod. It is further submittedthat victimswere in fact medicallyexaminedat Delhi and onlythereafterthey were handedover to theirrespectivefamily. It is also submittedthat it is wrong to suggestthat Vinod was arrestedon 04.09.2007,he was arrested on 05.09.2007which is evident from the testimonyof PW2. Learned counsel for the State further submits that the contradictionswhich have been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants are minor which do not go to the root the case ofthe prosecutionand do not go in favourin of the appellants.

¶12Beforethe rival submissionsofcounselfor the partiesare considered,we deem it appropriateto analyse the testimoniesof some of the important witnesses.

¶13PW-1, ShriMahipal,is the real brotherofone ofthe victimsi.e. AjayPal. PW-1 is also the complainant. As per the testimony of PW-1, on

13.9.2007around 11.00 a.m. he was presentat his shop when aperson approachedhim and enquiredabouthis brother,Ajay. PW-1 informedthe said personthat Ajay was nearbyand would come within 10-15 minutes. On asking, he infomied PW-1 that his name was Ashok. After 10-15 minutes,Ajay came to the shop. Ajay Pal was informedthat one Ashok, was asking his whereabouts.After 10-15 minutes Ashok again came to the shop. PW-1 informedAjaythatthis was the person,who had come to the shop and askedabouthis whereabouts.AshokinformedAjay Pal that he had some work with him. Both startedconversingoutsidethe shop of PW-1 and while talkingto each otherthey left towardsKalyanPuri side. After five minutes one Ravinder,also came to the shop of PW-1, who had asked about Ajay. PW-1 informedhim that Ajay had gone towards KalyanPuri side. Ravinderparkedhis motorcyclewith helmetin front of Crl.ANos. 1492/13 182/2014 1595/2013 Pagg7 the shop of PW-1 and proceededin the directionof Kalyan Puri. PW-1 has further testified that his brother, Ajay Pal, did not return till evening. On the next day, PW-1 enquired from his sister and also from the Villagersabout his brother,Ajay Pal. PW-1 has further testifiedthat on

15.9.2007a telephonecall was receivedby his brother-in-law,Shri Ashok Nagar, at 8.30 a.m. and he informedPW-1 that he was receivingcalls from phone of one Ravinder and the caller was asking for ransom of Rs.25.00 lakhs for release of Ajay Pal and Ravinder. Brother-in-lawof PW-1 gave him the number of Ravinderbut Ravinder did not pick his phone. PW-1 was again informedby his brother-in-lawthat arrangement for Rs.25.00 lakhs shouldbe made. Later on the place of deliveiy was told as Kachora Ghat, Hanuman Mandir, Etawah. Caller had also informed him that in case the Policewas contactedAjayPal and Ravinderwouldbe killed. PW-1 contacted the family members of Ravinder, who also informed that they had received a phone call demanding ransom of Rs.25.00 lakhs. PW-1 has further testified that around 9/10 a.m. he received a call on his PCO phone fi.-om the phone of Ravinder, which numberhadbeengivento him byhis brother-in-law.The callerdemanded Rs.25.00 laldis from him in lieu of release of Ajay Pal and Ravinder. PW-1 was advised not to contact the Police, failing which they would lose both the persons. PW-1 has also testified that on 16.9.2007a report was lodgedwiththe Policegivingdetailsof the entirefacts. His statementwas recorded as Ex.PW-l/A. He described the person, who came to his shop enquiringabouthis brotherAjay, had a dense moustache,he was wearing gogglesand was 5'8" tall. PW-1 also testifiedthat he receivedcalls from the abductormany times demandingmoney and threateningnot to report the matter to the Police. It is further testified by this witness that ransom letter was receivedby his brother,Devender,who had deliveredthe said Crl. A Nos. 1492/13 182/2014 1595/2013 letter (Exhibit PW-l/B) to the Police in his presence. A similar letter (Exhibit PW-l/C) was received by the family of Ravinder. The letters were in the handwritingofhis brother,Ajay Pal, and Ravinder.Initially, he testifiedthat he cannot identify those letters but could identify the handwriting of his brother Ajay. This witness also testified that on

4.10.2007policegot recoveredhis brother,Ajay Pal, and Ravinderfrom Etawah.

¶14On the next date ofthe examination-in-chief,PW-1 identifiedthe letter (Ex.P-1) and the envelope (Ex.P-2) to be those, which were taken in possessionby the Pohce. This witness has also testifiedthat Rs.10.00 lakhs were demanded vide the said letter.

¶15PW-1 was cross-examined at length. During cross-examination,he testifiedthat his brotherhad not informedhim specificallywhere he was going. He further testifiedthat his brother used to sleep on a wooden planlc in the shop. Size of the shop was describedas 10x12 sq. ft. It is further testifiedthat occasionally,his brother would go to the house of theirsister.He alsotestifiedthatalthoughtherewas amilkshop,awasher man shop and a groceryshop nearby his shop yet he did not know their names. During cross-examination,PW-1 could not tell the nature of clothesworn by the person,who had come to his shop. He also described the said man as having height of about 5'9" and was havingabeard. In Court PW-1 had identifiedAshok as the person, who had come to his shop. PW-1 deniedthe suggestionthatAshokhad~beenfalselyimplicated at the instance of his brother, Ajay Pal, who was lodged in Tihar Jail along with Ashok. He also denied the suggestion that it was in his laiowledgethat his brother, Ajay Pal, had threatenedAshok to falsely implicate him in another matter. This witness has also testified that ransomletterwasreceivedbyhim on21.09.2007. CrLANos.1492/13 182/2014 1595/2013 Page9of30

¶16It is the case of the appellantsthat PW-1, Mahipal Singh, is not a reliable, witness. It is further the case of the appellants that there are material contradictions in the evidence of PW-1 as far as the appellant Ashok, visiting the shop in question is concerned.

¶17PW-2, Sandeep Singh Verma @ Sintu, has testified that he is running a shop at Ghaziabad.On 15.9.2007at 9.30 a.m. he received a phone call from Prem Chand @ Fauzi, who informed him that Ravinder and Ajay Pal were in his custody and Rs.25.00 lakhs were demanded for their release, which were to be delivered at Kachora Ghat, Hanuman Temple. The caller also cautioned PW-2 not to inform the Police or else both, Ravinder and Ajay, would be killed. PW-2 also testified that Ravinder was his maternal uncle and he was residing with him since childhood at Village Dagarpur. He also testified that this fact was informed to other family members including maternal aunt, Smt.Poonam Verma. On

16.9.2007, he along with Mahipal, brother of Ajay (PW-1), visited the Police Station and reported the matter. This witness also testified that he was informed by the caller that he would receive letters in the handwritings of Ajay Pal and Ravinder and on 18.9.2007 a postman had delivered a letter at his house at Village Dagarpur. The said letter was in the handwriting of his maternal uncle, Ravinder. As per the letter money was to be arranged as soon as possible, failing which Ravinder would be killed. After receipt of the letter another phone call was received on

19.9.2007 between 8.30 and 9.00 p.m. The caller made Ravinder talk to this witness. Ravinder told him that the demand should be accepted, money shouldbe aiTangedeven if the house and shops are to be sold and in case the money was not arrangedthe abductorswouldkill him. At that juncture,his maternalaunt, Smt. PoonamVerma, also requestedto have a talk with Ravinder and she was allowed to talk to Ravinder, who Crl. A Nos. 1492/13 182/2014 1595/2013 reiterated the same facts to Poonam. Thereafter the phone was disconnected. This witness has also testified that similar letters were received in the house of Ajay Pal, which was handed over to the Police. PW-2 has also testified that the caller was in constant touch with them. The caller asked them to. reach Kachora Ghar, Hanuman Temple, via Jaswant Nagar.

¶18As per PW-2 on 23.9.2007,he along with Devender, brother of Ajay Pal, and driver proceeded for Jaswant Nagar by a car. They stayed at Firozabad in the night as they became late. They reached Jaswant Nagar in the morning on 24.9.2007. On his mobile number 9410054905 he received a call from the number of Ravinder at 9.30 a.m. As per this witness, he used to receive calls of the caller from the same very number of Ravinder at his mobile, besides landline phone. The caller had informed that they were present in Jaswant Nagar. The caller instructed them to reach Kachora Ghat and further enquired about Prem Chand Fauzi. They made efforts to trace Prem Chand Fauzi but could not do so. Another call was received and they were directed to reach Village Roora. But none came to contact them. The caller again instructed them to reach at Ahir Tola. They reached the said place. They were all along followed by the Police team. They were again informed by the caller to reach the house of a person behind the petrol pump. When they reached the said place, they were again informed to reach Village Sirsa. The details were being informed by this witness telephonically to Inspector Ram Kishore Meena. At night, this witness stayed in a hotel at Etawah, as directed by the Inspector. Again the caller instructed them to reach before a Professor at Jaswant Nagar. They met the Professor, who assured them that the kidnapped persons would be traced out. Thereafter the caller instructed Crl. A Nos. 1492/13 182/2014 1595/2013 them to reach home and arrange for the money and consequently they reached home on 25.9.2007 without any clue of Ajay Pal and Ravinder.

¶19On 26.9.2007 again a call was received by this witness from the same caller. The caller had instructed this witness to arrange for money, fixing the last date as 30.9.2007, failing which, Ajay and Ravinder would be killed. On the following morning, again a phone call was received. At the request of this witness, the caller allowed this witness to talk to Ravinder. Ravidner had repeated the same conversation. Time was extended upto

4.10.2007 for arranging money.

¶20As per this witness, the caller kept on contacting him about the arrangement of money. On 4.10.2007 PW-2 went to Etawah by train along with Atma Ram Verma for arranging money. Around 9. or 9.30 p.m., he received a call from Inspector Ram Kishore Meena asking him to remain present at Etawah. On the following day i.e. 5.10.2007 around

8.30 or 9.00 a.m. this witness received a call from Inspector Ram Kishore Meena informing him that Ajay Pal and Ravinder had been rescued. He was called at Police Station Matsena. On reaching the Police Station Ajay Pal and Ravinder were found. After meeting them they returned to Delhi. PW-2 was also cross-examined in detail.

¶21Another important witness is PW-3, HC Naresh, who has testified that on ' 4.10.2007 he along with SI Arun Kumar, Inspector Ram Kishore and other police staff had reached Police Station Matsena, District Firozabad, in connection with the investigation of this case. As per his testimony, the above persons had proceeded from Delhi on 1.10.2007 by a private vehicle. Special staff officials of North-East District, Delhi, were already present at Police Station Matsena. I.O. of the case contacted S.O. of Police Station Matesena, namely, Sh. K.K. Mishra. A plan was made to get the abducted persons, Ajay Pal and Ravinder, released. Police party Crl. A Nos. 1492/13 182/2014 1595/2013 was divided in two teams, consisting of four members in each. This witness had accompanied Inspector Ram Kishore Meena, SI Arun and SO K.K. Mishra. Both these teams'started combing operation during evening in the forest area of Village Sikora. Further, as per the testimony of this witness, on 5.10.2007 SO K.K. Mishra had received information around

12.30 noon that a person was waiting near Sikora Kali Mata Wala Mandir, whose name was Vinod, who had kidnapped two persons and demanded ransom for their release. The entire team reached the informed place at

12.45 p.m. The person was over powered. This witness identified Vinod present in Court. Search was conducted and two mobile phones i.e. (i) Black coloured LG mobile phone and (ii) Silver coloured NOKIA mobile phone were recovered from his possession.

¶22The I.O. informed that LG mobile phone belonged to Ravinder and Silver coloured NOKIA phone was of Vinod, who were abducted. Details of Mobile numbers including IMEI numbers were incorporated in the seizure memo. On interrogation Vinod disclosed that he could lead the Police to the forest of Sikora to enable them to recover the abducted persons i.e. Ravinder and Ajay. The disclosure statement of Vinod is Exhibit PW-3/B and the aiTest memo and search memo are Exhibit 3/C and D, respectively. All the above documents were signed by this witness at points 'A'. On reaching the spot two persons were found tied with rope pieces and their eyes were tied with a cloth. Both the persons, namely, Ravinder and Ajay, were untied and released. Rope pieces and cloth pieces were seized by the 10, Exhibit PW-3/E. Ravinder and Ajay were recovered by memo Exhibit PW-3/F. Accused were brought to Police Station Matsena and thereafter Police officials along with two victims returnedto Delhi.Ravinderand Ajay were examinedat LBS Hospitaland Crl. A Nos. 1492/13 182/2014 1595/2013 Page13 of 30 handed over to their family members.This witness identifiedthe mobile phone,two towels(angochas)and two piecesofjuterope.

¶23During cross-examination,PW-3 could not tell the DD number vide which they had proceededto Firozabadnor could he tell the time of departure.He also could not tell the Registrationnumber of the vehicle Qualis nor he recalledthe time of reachingPolice StationMatsena. He also could not tell the number of anival entry at Police Station. He confliTnedthat the victims,Ravinderand Ajay Pal, had beentied with the ropes. None from the Village Sikora was called during the disclosure statement.

¶24PW4, Shri Atma Ram, who was working as ASI in Delhi Police, has testifiedthat Ravinderis his brother-in-lawand Ajay is the neighbourof Ravinder.He has furthertestifiedthat on 14.9.2007he was telephonically informedby Smt.Poonam,wife ofRavinder,that Ravidnerand Ajay had beenkidnappedand a demandofRs.25.00lakhsas ransomhas beenmade for their release.This witness also testifiedthat phone calls ofthe caller were being tapped by Sandeep. The Police was informedand the matter was beingpursued.It is furthertestifiedthat on 5.10.2007he was present at DagarPur. He had receivedinformationthroughPolicethat Ajay and Ravinder had been rescued. He along with Poonam, Sintu and other personswent to PoliceStationNew AshokNagar. Around 11.30p.m. the Police reached with Ajay and Ravinderand one accusedperson Vinod, whom he identified in Court.

¶25PW5, Ajay, and PW6, Ravinder,are the victims. PW5 has testifiedthat Mahipal (PWl) is his real brother, who runs a grocery shop at Village Kondli. He also used to look afterthe said shop. He furthertestifiedthat in the year 1997, he was arrested by the police in connectionwith a robberyand murdercase,whichwas registeredat PoliceStationMehrauli, CrLANos.1492/13 182/2014 1595/2013 Page 14 of30 Delhi.In jailhe came in contactwith anotherperson,namely,Ashokwith whom he became friendly. Althoughhe was releasedin the year 2000-2001 Ashok continued to be confined in Tihar Jail. In August, 2007, Ashok had come to his village and met him. Ashok informedPW5 that afterhis releasehe startedabusinessat Bombayand afterwindingup of his businessat Bombayhe settledin Firozabad.Ashoksoughtthe help of PW5 to purchasea plot at NOIDA or Delhi to enable him to start his business. PW5 assuredhelp to Ashokin this regardand informedthat he was havingashop at Kondli.The familymembersofPW5 includingone, Devender,were presentwhen Ashok had met him at the Village.Ashok had requestedPW5 to accompanyhim to his villagewithaviewto assure his wife that PW-5 is his well-wisherand may help him in connection with his businessat Delhi, as his wife was apprehensivethat none would supportAshokinthe areaofDelhiorNOIDA.Ashokhad met them atthe bus stand and requestedPW-5 to accompanyhim to Firozabad.Ashok also suggestedthatthey shouldtravelto Firozabadby motocyclebut PW5 declinedthe requestofAshokand ultimatelyall the threepersonscameto the shop ofPW-1 at Kondli by that motorcycle.Ashokhad alightedfrom the motorcyclenear abarbershop at Kondli for shaving,which was at a distanceof about 10-15 steps from the shop of PW5. He had conveyed' this fact to his brother, Mahipal. He also parked his motorcycleat this shop. PW5 conveyedto his brotherthathe had to go to Firozabadwithhis friend. Ashokhad then come to the shop. His brotherquestionedhim and he got his brother introducedwith Ashok and thereafter all the three persons proceededto Firozabadafter boardinga bus fi-om Anand Vihar around 3.00 or 3.30 p.m. they boarded bus for Etah. Around 7:30-8:00 PM accusedAshok made acall from his mobile phone while they were travelling.Accusedtookhis phone and talkedwith someoneaftershifting Crl.ANos. 1492/13 182/20141595/2013 Pagelsofso' to back seat. Ashok told him that he was informinghis wife so that she may prepare food for them. They reached Firozabad at about 10-10:30PM.AccusedAshokmade a call from nearbyPCO. One personmet him nearPCO. Two personscame thereonmotorcycle.He and PW6 were made to sit on motorcycle.One motorcyclewas being drivenby accused Vinodand othermotorcyclewas beingdrivenby accusedPrem Chand@ Fauzi. They covereda distanceof 8-10 KM. Thereafter6-7 personsmet them on the way. Those persons took out the ignition key from the motorcycle. One of them put country-maderevolver on his temporal region.The personwho was sittingbehindhim on motorcyclecaughthold of him by his collar. Thereafterhis eyes were tied with a cloth band and they were directedto keep quite failingwhich they were threatenedto be killed. Thereaftertheir hands were tied by rope and they were taken on foot from that place. He covered distance of 2-3 KM and he was made to sit in a place. He was wearing four gold rings and was having mobile phone and Rs. 4,000/-Rs, 5,000/-, all these things were taken away. He requestedthose personsto let them go but they were told that they have abducted them (Hamne tumharipakad kar li). On being asked about Ashok, he was told that they have taken him from accused Ashok in lieu of Rs. 20,000/-paid as advanceand rest of money has to be paid. From the voice of Ravinder, he felt his presence there.

¶26PW5 fiirtherdeposedthat he was told that their Chief(mukhiya)would come in the morning. He was kept in chain. His hands were tied with angochhaand his eyes were tied with band. Cotton was inserted in his ears. Nothingwas given exceptbread for eating. Mukhiyacame; he and PW6 were made to sit adjacentto each other.His eyes band was removed and he was covered with cloth. He was not able to see the face of mukhiya.He was providedapaperand pen, mulchiyaaskedhim towritea Crl.ANos. 1492/13 182/2014 1595/2013 ' Page 16 of30 letter demanding Rs.10,00,000/-from his family in lieu of his release. Initiallythey had talkedabout Rs.35,00,000/-thereafterthey came down to Rs.25,00,000/-and lastly he was directedto write Rs.10,00,000/-for his releasefor which he wrote a letter. Again his eyes were tied with a band. He providedphone numberofhis brotherin law. Subsequentlyhe was assuredthattheyhad talkedwithhis familymembersand they would be releasedwithin3-4 days. PW6 was also forcedto writea similarletter. He was providedroti and chatniin the morningand evening.In case need ofnatural call, his chain was releasedlittle bit and again he used to be broughtat the same place. He remainedconfinedfor about 22-23 days. Duringthis period,3-4 personscontinuouslyguardedthem with arms. He was made to realizearms by puttingsuch arms in his hands. Whenpolice reachedpersonsguardingthem managedto escape. At thattime, accused Vmod was in the custodyofthe police.They were taken to local PS and then broughtto Delhi. On 28.12.2007he visitedPS New Ashok Nagar withPW6 wherehe saw accusedPrem Chandand he identifiedhim as the same person who has escorted him on motorcycle along with other associates.

¶27PW6 Ravinderalso deposedon the similarlinesas deposedby PW5.

¶28PW7 Poonam, wife ofRavinderdeposedthatshe had receivedphonecall from him that he was goingto Firozabadand will returnwithinaday or two. She deposed that on 14.09.2007 phone of Ravinder was found switchedoff and on 15.09.2007when she called, some person attended the phone call who informed that Ravinder had been abducted by crimmals but he was rescued from them and that person asked her to arrangeRs. 25,00,000/-.Thereaftershe deposedaboutanotherransomcall and the instructionsgiven by the callers and also deposed about the ransom letters received. Crl.A Nos. 1492/13 182/2014 1595/2013

¶29PW8 Ct. Ramesh was a witness to the arrest of the accused Prem Chand @ Fauji in Courtandprovedhis arrestmemo and disclosurestatementas Ex.PWS/A and PW8/B respectively. PW9 Shri. G.N. Pandey, Ld. MM proved the TIP proceedings of accused Prem Chand @ Fauji as Ex. PW9/A to PW9/C. PWIO HC Mahavir was the duty officer who proved the copy of the FIR as Ex.PW10/A.

¶30PWll Ashok, brother-in-law of victim Ajay deposed that he had received the ransom call regarding which he informed PW-1 Mahipal. PW12 Davender was the elder brother Ajay who deposed about the abduction of Ajay and Ravinder and the ransom call made by the caller. He further deposed that the custody of victim Ajay was given to him vide memo EX.PW12/A.

¶31PW13 HC Rambir Singh, the MHC (M) proved the entries made in Register No. 19 as Ex.PW 13/A and PW13/B. PW14 SI Vinay Yadav collected the calls details of mobile numbers 9871276142 of victim Ravinder and 9971427767 of victim Ajay and of No. 9997436407 and proved the same as Ex.Pwl4/A to PW14/H5.

¶32PW15 Insp. Ram Kishore took over investigation of this case on

19.09.2007 and he deposed that on 20.09.2007 he was handed over ransom letters by Shintu and Mahipal and he examined the call details of phone No. 9971427767 and 9997436407. He further deposed about the investigation done by him, during the time when he reached Jaswant Nagar to Agra and Firozabad. He further deposed about the arrest of accused Vinod and recovery of two mobile phones from him and recovery of both victims at his instance.

¶33PW16 Ins. Arun Kumar was the main 10 and he deposed that on

16.09.2007 he recorded the statement of Mahipal vide Ex.PWl/A on which he made his endorsement Ex.PW 16/A and further provided the Crl. A Nos. 1492/13 182/2014 1595/2013 IM portraitof accusedAsholc which is Ex.PW16/B.He further deposedthe investigationproceedings carried out by him. He further proved the seizurememo ofmotorcycleofvictimRavinderas Ex.PW16/C,specimen handwritingof accused Vinod as Ex.PW16/Dl and D2 and also proved the arrestdocumentsof accusedPrem Chand@ Fauji on 15.12.2007who was produced in KarkardoomaCourts by the police of PS Maldianpur, District, Ferozabad. He further proved the FSL Report as Ex.Cl and identifiedthe case property.

¶34PW17 Shyam Babu Verma the owner of motor cycle No. DL-8S AH-4584 handed over by him to his cousin Ravinder which he took on superdari under orders of the Court. He proved the superdarinamaas Ex.PWlT/Aand motorcycleas Ex.PW17/Articlel.PW18 ASI Rajinder Singhwas the 10 with regardto accusedAshokon 27.04.2009.he proved his arrest memo as Ex.PW 18/A.

¶35PW19 SI KiishnaKumar Mishra from PS Matsena, DistrictFeroxabad, UP had joined the investigation team of SI Arun Kumar and Ins. Ram Krishore along with other staff on 04.10.2007. He deposed about the arrest of accused Vinod, he also deposed about the recovery of two mobilephones from him and the recoveryof both the victims.He further identifiedthe casepropertyin the Court.

¶36PW20 Sh. R.K. Singh, Nodal Officer,Bharti Airtel Ltd proved CDRs of mobileNo. 9971427767and 9871276142for the periodfrom 01.09.2007 to 18.09.2007 for Delhi Circle and UP West Circle. He also proved customerapplicationform, copy of ID proof, cell ID of these numbersas Ex. PW20/A to E. He.also provided certificaterequired under Section 65B of India Evidence Act as Ex.PW20/E.

¶37On the basis of incriminatingevidence against accused persons their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded Accused Ashok CrL ANos. 1492/13 182/2014 1595/2013 Page 19 of30 Kumar denied the entire evidence against him and took the defence of false implication.He stated that he was lodged in Tihar Jail along with PW5 and used to watch TV along with him. Once he had beatenhim in jail since then PW5 was having enmity with him and had threatenedto take revenge.

¶38Accused Prem Chand @ Fauji also denied entire evidenceagainst him. Accused Vinod also denied entire evidence against him stating that he was lifted from near subziMandi.Victimswere apprehendeda day before and he was falsely implicated in this case.

¶39Accused Vinod led defence evidence and examinedDWl Munesh and DW2 Sanjayand tookdefenceto provehis falseimplication.

¶40To decidethe presentcase in hand we are ofthe view that it is important to discuss the role of all the accused persons. Accused Ashok insisted PW5 to comewith himto Ferozabadto assurehis wiTe that PW5 will help him in establishinghis businessat Delhi. PW6 being friend of PW5 also accompaniedthem to Ferozabad.As per their plan, accusedPrem Chand @Fauzi and accused Vinod came there on the motorcycleand on the pointofagun tookPW6 on the motorcycle.Theireyes were coveredwith cloth and hands were tied with a rope. AccusedVinod was apprehended by the police on05.10.2007 from Sikora Mata Mandir, he made a disclosure statement Ex. PW3/B, pursuant to the statement he got recovered PW5 and PW6 from the forest nearby. As per FSL report Ex.Cl ransom notes received by relatives of PW5 and PW6 were in handwritingof accusedVinod.

¶41On perusal of documents,testimoniesof witnesses and submissionsof both the counsel, we are ofthe viewthat one ofthe main chargesagainst accusedpersonsis for enteringinto a criminalconspiracyto abductPW5 Crl. A Nos. 1492/13 182/2014 1595/2013 Page20of30 and PW6 for ransom. Section 120A of the Indian Penal Code defines criminal conspiracy as under: "120A. Definition ofcriminal conspiracy.—Whentwo or moreper sons agree to do, or cause to be done,—

(1) an illegal act, or

(2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy: Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracyunlesssome act besidesthe agreementis done by one or more parties to such agreementin pursuance thereof Explanation.—Itis immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimateobject of such agreement, or is merely incidentalto that object."

¶42The ingredients of the Section 120B are also proved in the present case as: a) There was an agreement between the persons who are alleged to conspire. b) The agreement was for an illegal activity. c) The common intention of the accused persons was also proved. d) All the accused have played there part in the act for achieving the common purpose for their common benefits.

¶43So far as the discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses are concerned, we are of the view that it is not possible for a witness to remember each and every fact of the incident and the law in this regard is well settled by the Apex Court in Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat: (1983) 3 SCC 217, observed that: "...overmuch importance cannot be attached to minor discrepancies, by and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memoryas ifso happens that a witness is overtaken by events. Thepowers of observation differfrom person to person. Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which taken place in rapid succession or in a short time span. The reliance on such small CrlANos. 1492/13 182/2014 1595/2013 discrepanciesshall not cause injustice to the victims of such ^grievanceact... "

¶44In Krishna Mochi and Ors. vs. State of Bihar: ( 2002) 6 SCC 81, the Hon'ble ApexCourtheldas under: "...Ifa whole body of the testimonyis to be rejectedbecause the witnesswas evidentlyspeakingan untruthin someaspect, it is to be fearedthatadministrationofcriminaljusticewouldcome to a dead stop. Witnessesjust cannot help in giving embroideryto a story, howevertrue in the main. Therefore,it has to be appraised in each case as to what extent the evidence is worthy of acceptance, and merelybecausein some respectsthe Courtconsidersthe same to be insufficientfor placing reliance on the testimonyof a witness, it does not necessarilyfollow as a matter of law that it must be disregardedin all respectas well. The evidencehas to be satisfied with care. One hardlycomesacrossa witness,whose evidencedoes not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggeration, embroidery or embellishments. An attempt has to be made to separate thegrainfrom thechaff..." XXX "It is matter of common experiencethat in recent times there has beensharpdeclineofethicalvalues inpubliclife even in developed countries much less developingone, like ours, where the ratio of declineishigher.Even in ordinarycases, witnessesare not inclined to deposeor theirevidenceis notfoundto be credibleby courtsfor manifoldreasons. One of the reasonsmay be that they do not have courage to depose against an accused because of threats to their life, more so when the offendersare habitualcriminalsor high-ups in the Government or close to powers, which may be political, economic or other powers including musclepower. A witness may not stand the test of cross-examinationwhich may sometimes be because he is a bucolicperson and is not able to understandthe questionput to him by the skilfulcross-examinerandat times under the stressof cross-examination,certainanswersare snatchedfrom him. When a rusticor illiteratewitnessfaces an astute lawyer, there is bound to be imbalance and, therefore, minor discrepancies have to be ignored. Thesedays it is not difficultto gain overa witnessby money power or giving him any other allurance or giving out threats to his life and/orproperty at the instance ofpersons, in/or CrI. A Nos. 1492/13 182/2014 1595/2013 Page22 of30 close to powersandmusclemen or theirassociates.Such instances are also not uncommon where a witness is not inclined to depose because in the prevailing social structure he wants to remain indifferent..."

¶45Substantiallysimilarviewwas takenby Hon'bleApex Courtin Kuriaand Am. V. StateofRajasthan:(2012)10SCC433, the Apex Courtheld: "...ThisCourthas repeatedlytaken the view that the discrepancies or improvementswhich do not materiallyaffect the case of the prosecutionand are insignificantcannot be made the basis for doubting the case of the prosecution. The courts may not concentrate too much on such discrepanciesor improvements.The purposeis toprimarilyand clearlysiftthe chaffrom the grainand findout the truthfrom the testimonyofthe witnesses. Where it does not affectthe coreoftheprosecutioncase, such discrepancyshould not be attached undue significance.The normal course of human conductwould be that while narrating a particular incident, there may occur minor discrepancies.Such discrepanciesmay even in law render credential to the depositions. The improvements or variationsmust essentiallyrelate to the materialparticulars of the prosecutioncase. The allegedimprovementsandvariationsmustbe shown with respect to materialparticularsof the case and the occurrence.Every such improvement, not directly related to the occurrence,is nota groundto doubtthe testimonyofa witness. The credibilityofa definitecircumstanceof theprosecutioncase cannot be weakened with reference to such minor or insignificant improvements. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgmentsofthis Courtin KathiBharatVajsurandAnr. v. Stateof Gujarat: (2012) 5 SCC 724, Narayan Chetanram Chaudharyand Anr. V. State of Maharashtra: (2000) 8 SCC 457, D.P. Chadha v. Triyugi Narain Mishra and Ors.: (2001) 2 SCC 205, Sukhchain Singh V. StateofHaryanaandOrs.: (2002) 5SCC 100."

¶46In Prabhat Singh V5. State: Crl. A. 926 and 1010/2009, 422 and 452/2010,192/2011and 230/2014,this Courtobserved: "71.The principle that can be culled out from the aforesaid decisions are that minor discrepancies and inconsistencies cannot be given undue importance. The Court has to see whether inconsistencies go to the root of the matter and affect the truthfulness of the witnesses, while keeping in view that Crl. ANos. 1492/13 182/2014 1595/2013 Page 23 of30 discrepancies are inevitable in the statement of witnesses who speak them after longlapse oftime."

¶47In this case, the first lead was provided by Sh.Mahipal, PW-1, who is the real brother of one of the victims, Ajay Pal. PW-1 has testified that on

13.9.2007, around 11.00 a.m., a person had come to his shop and asked for his brother Ajay. Upon asking,the said person has disclosedhis name as Ashok. As his brother, Ajay, was not in the shop, on his returning PW-1 disclosedto him that a person,by the name of Ashok, was askingabout his whereabouts. After ten or fifteen minutes the same person returned to the shop. PW-1 told his brother,Ajay, that he was the same person who had introduced himself as Ashok. Thus, the presence and identity of Ashok stands duly established as the person with whom the victim was last seen. PW-1 has ftirther testified that on 15.9.2007 a telephone call had been received by his brother-in-law, Sh.Ashok Nagar, who informed him that someone was making calls from the phone of one, Ravinder, and was asking for ransom of Rs.25.00 lakhs for releasing PW-l's brother and Ravinder (the second Victim). This witness has also testified that he was informed with regard to the place of delivery at Kachora Ghat, Hanuman Mandir, Etawah. This witness has ftirther testified that he was cautioned that in case Police was informed his brother and Ravinder would be killed. PW-1 had contacted the family members of Ravinder, who also informed him that they had also received a phone call concerning demand of ransom of Rs.25.00 lakhs. This witness has also testified that he had received a phone call at his PCO Phone No.64448803 from the phone of Ravinder, which was provided by his brother-in-law. PW-1 had attended the call. The caller had demanded Rs.25.00 lakhs in lieu of release of his brother, Ajay Pal, and Ravinder. PW-1 had lodged a report with the Police on 16.9.2007. He had naiTated the entire facts to the Police. Statement of Cri A Nos. 1492/13 182/2014 1595/2013 PW-1 was recorded as PW-l/A. PW-1 had also provided descriptionof Ashok. PW-1 has also described in his testimony regarding phone calls receivedby him. PW-1 has also testifiedthat a ransomletterwas received at his village by his brother, Devender. The said ransom letter was delivered to the Pohce, which was seized by the Police vide memo No.PW-l/B,whichbearsthe signatureofPW-1 atpointA. PW-1 has also testifiedthat a similarletter had been receivedby the family of Ravinder, which was also seizedby the Policevide memo ExhibitPW-l/C,which also bears his signature at point B. The said letters were in the handwritingof Ajay Pal and Ravinder. PW-1 has also testifiedthat on

4.10.2007Policehad got recoveredAjay Pal and Ravidnerfrom Itawah. PW-1 has also identified the both the ransom letters in the Court.

¶48PW-1 was cross-examinedin detail. We find that although there were some contradictionsin his testimonybut as far as the main issues were concerned his testimony remained unshaken.

¶49PW-2, SandeepSingh, had deposedthat Ravinder,one ofthe victims, is his maternal uncle and he was residing with him since childhood at Village Dagarpur. PW-2 was one of the persons, who was receiving ransom calls regarding abduction of his uncle, Ravinder. PW-2 has testifiedthat he hadreceiveda call at his shop from Prem Chand@Fauji, who was demandingRs.25.00lakhs,whichamountwas to be deliveredat Kachora Ghat, Hanuman Temple. PW-2 was told that in case any informationwas given to the Police then both (Ajay Pal and Ravinder) would be killed; PW-2 had conveyed this message to his other family members.His maternalaunt, PoonamVerma, also informedthat she had receiveda telephonecall of ransom to the same effect. PW-2 has also confirmedthat on 16.9.2007 he along with Mahipal, brother of Ajay; Ashok Kumar, brother-in-lawof Mahipal; and some other neighbours Crl. ANos. 1492/13182/2014 1595/2013 Page25 of30 visitedPolice StationAshok Nagar, and a report was made to the Police on 16.9.2007.

¶50PW-2 has furthertestifiedwith regardto the letter deliveredat his house at Village Dagarpur. PW-2 has identified the letter to be in the handwritingofhis maternaluncle,Ravinder.On receiptofthe letter,PW-2 again contactedthe Police. On 19.9.2007PW-2 was made to hear the voice of Ravinder,who had asked him to acceptthe demandof the caller and arrange money from all possiblemeans. His maternalaunt, Poonam Verma, also talkedto Ravinder.PW-2 also confirmedthat a copy of the ransom letter was handed over to the Police. PW-2 has also testified that a similar letter had been receivedby the brother of victim, Ajay Pal.

¶51The testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 are reliable for the reason that both the witnesses have described in an identical manner in which the ransom calls were made and the ransom letters were received. Both PW-1 and PW-2 alsotestifiedthe placewherethe ransommoneywas to be delivered i.e. at Kachora Ghat, HanumanTemple. PW-2 has also given a complete descriptionhow the instructionsof the caller were being followed and how the Police was in constant touch. PW-2 has also given the dates and time whenthe phonecallswerebeingreceived.

¶52The testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 stand fully corroborated by the testimony of the victim, PW-5 Ajay Pal, whose testimony we have discussed in paragraphs aforegoing and the testimony of and PW-6 Ravinder, who deposed on the similar lines as PW-5.

¶53PW-5, Ajay Pal (victim) has testifiedthe manner in which he had met Ashok and how he had accompaniedhim as his presencewas requiredto assurethe wife of Ashokthat Ajay Pal was a well-wisherand wouldhelp him in connection with business at Delhi, as his wife was not satisfied that Ashok had any connection in Delhi and NOIDA. PW-5 had given a CrL A Nos.1492/13 182/2014 1595/2013 Page26 of30 complete description of how he, Ravinder and the appellant Ashok travelledto Firozabad.He has also corroboratedthe testimonyof PW-1 with regard to the factum of Ashok coming to the shop of PW-1 and enquiringabout PW-5. He has alsotestifiedhow the three (he, Ravinder and Ashok)proceededfor Firozabadby boardingabus from AnandVihar at around3.00 or 3.30 pm and a bus from Etaah. The victimhas given a completedescriptionthat how he and Ravinderwere made to sit on the motorcycle.One motorcyclewas being driven by the appellant,Vinod, and the othermotorcyclewas beingdrivenby Prem chand@Fauji.PW-5 and Ravinderwere made to sit in betweenon the motorcycle.After eight or nine kilometers6-7 persons met them. The motorcycleswere slowed down and the ignitionkeys were taken off. One ofthe personshad put a country made pistol on the temporalregion ofPW-5. PW-5 has further testifiedthattheir eyes were tied with a cloth and'handswere tied with a rope. They were taken on foot for a distance. The way was rough and havingpits and heightsat severalplaces.All the belongingsofPW-5 were removed. PW-5 has also testified that he was informed that they were handedover to them by Ashok in lieu ofRs.20,000/-,which was paid as advance.This witnesshas alsogivena vivid descriptionof the mannerin whichhe was madeto writethe ransomletterandthe mannerinwhichhis hands and eyes were tied. PW-5 identifiedthe ransom letter which was got written by him.

¶54PW-5 also identifiedthe appellant,Prem Chand @ Fauji, as the person, who had escortedhim on motorcyclealongwith other associates.

¶55PW-6, Ravinder, has corroboratedthe evidence of PW-5. PW-6 has ^ testifiedand confirmedthat a bus was boardedfrom AnandViharto Etaah and from Etah againbus was takenfor Tundla.PW-6 has alsotestifiedon the lines of PW-5 with regard to the manner in which he and Ajay Pal Crl. ANos. 1492/13 182/2014 1595/2013 Page27 of30 were made to sit in between on the motorcycle. PW-6 has identified appellant, Vinod. PW-6 has also testified the manner in which a country made pistol was put on his temporal rejoin; his hands were tied and eyes were covered; the manner in which the persons were addressing each other i.e. Chotta Fauji, Bada Fauji, Chela Ram, Prem Chand, etc. PW-6 has also identified the letter written by him demanding ransom money for his release. PW-6 has also identified Prem Chand @ Fauji as the person, who had taken them on the motorcycle.

¶56PW-7, Poonam, wife of Ravinder Kumar, has also confirmed that she had received a phone call from her husband, who informed her that he would be going to Ferozabad and would return in one or two days. PW-7 had tried to contact her husband but his phone was switched off. PW-7 has testified that she was informed by the phone of Ravinder that he had been abducted. PW-7 has confirmed that she was directed to arrange Rs.25.00 laldis and also confiraied about the place, being Kachora Ghat, Hanuman Temple, where the money was to be delivered. PW-7 confirmed the manner in which she was threatened that in case Police was informed Ravinder and Ajay would be killed. This witness also confirmed receipt of ransom letter.

¶57Based on the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-7, being close family members of the victims, and based on the testimonies of PW-5 and PW-6, being the victims, there is no room for doubt to reach the conclusion that the victims, PW-5 and PW-6, were kidnapped for ransom. The victims were put under fear that in case the ransom amount was not paid, they would be killed. Similar threats were extended to the family members of the victims. The victims were made to write ransom letters, which were delivered to their family members. Their testimonies also leave no room for doubt that constant phone calls were being made to their family Crl.A Nos.1492/13 182/2014 1595/2013 Page28 of30

¶58members,Rs.25.00lakhs was being demandedtowardsransom and the family memberswere beingthreatenedthat in case Policewas informed both,Ajay andRavinder,wouldbe killed. The witnesseshave not made any contradictionswith regardto the main issuessuchas the amountofransom,the placewherethe moneywas to be delivered,the date when the Police was informed,the manner of phone callsand the kindoflanguageused. Similarlyboththe victimshavegiven an almost identical descriptionabout the manner mwhich they were kidnapped, how they reached Firozabad and then Etah. their further journeyon motorcycle,and the mannerthey were kept with their hands tied and eyes covered.The victimsand their family membershave also given aconsistentdescriptionof the ransom letters, which stand duly identifiedby PW-5 and PW-6.respectively.

¶59PW-3, HC Naresh, has testifiedthe mamier in which he along with SI Arun Kumar, Inspector Ram Kishore and other Pohce Staff reached Police Station Matsena, District Firozabad; the manner in which the Police party was divided into two teams consistingof four membersm each team; the mamierin which Vinod, one ofthe appellants,was over powered;aboutthe mobilephonesincludingLG Phone,which belonged to Ravinder,whichwererecoveredfrom him, and basedon the disclosure of Vinod, Ravinderand Ajay were recoveredfrom the forest of Sikora. PW-3 has also provedthe arrestmemo ofVinod and his personalsearch, being Exhibit PW-3/C and PW-3/D, respectively. PW-3 has also confirmedthatthe victimswerefoundtiedwithropesandtheireyes were also covered with cloth, an identical descriptiongiven by the victim themselves. .. - - Crl. ANos. 1492/13 182/2014 1595/2013

¶60PW-3 has also identifiedthe towel, two mobile phones and two rope piecesmade ofjute,whichwere usedto tie up the victimsand the mobile phonesusedto make ransomcalls.

¶61We may also noticeat this stagethat the accusedpersonshad refusedto take part in the TIP.

¶62Anotherwitness,PW-11, Ashok also testifiedthat thathe had receiveda phone call on 15.9.2007 after confirming that he was brother-in-law (Behnoi) of Ajay, he was informed that Ajay and Ravinder had been abducted and Rs.25.00 laldiswere demanded in lieu of their release.

¶63AfterperusingthejudgmentsrefeiTedto in the paragraphsaforegoingand taking into considerationthe facts and circumstancesof the presentcase as well as the criminalityof the offenceof the appellants,we are of the considered view that the decision rendered by the learned Trial Court in the present case is just and proper and any interferencetherein by this Courtmightcauseinjusticetothe victimsofthepresentcase.

¶64In view of the above, the appeals do not present special features warrantingai;iy interferenceby this Court. The appealsare devoidof any merit and are, accordingly, dismissed.

¶65Copy ofthis judgmentbe sent to the Superintendent,Jail for information of the appellants.Trial CourtRecordbe sent back along with copy ofthe judgment. G. s. sistanCj. SANGITA;l^™ra^SEHGAL,J. FEBRUARY, 2016 gr/msr Crl. A Nos. 1492/13 182/2014 1595/2013 Page30 of30

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgmentreservedon 24"^November,2015 Judgment delivered on 25th February, 2016 + CRL.A.NO.182/2014 PREM CHAND @ FAUZI ...Appellant Through: Mr.Neeraj Bhardwaj, Advocate Versus STATE ... Respondent Through: Mi-.Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP for the State ^CORAM: f HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL