Rakesh v. State

order be forwarded to the Superintendent Central Jail Tihar.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

ARUNA SURESH, J.

JANUARY 28, 2009 dk/mm

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI Judgment reserved on : January 22, 2009 % Judgment delivered on : January 28, 2009 + CRL.A. 491/2005 RAKESH ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Bhupesh Narula, Advocate. versus STATE OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Ms.Richa Kapoor, Advocate. CRL.A. 618/2005 SURESH ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, Advocate. versus STATE OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Ms.Richa Kapoor, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ARUNA SURESH 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? : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. 1. Appellants were alleged to have conspired to kidnap Angad, aged 7½ years for ransom and in furtherance of the conspiracy they kidnapped Angad on 12.9.2000 and demanded for his release, firstly a sum of Rs.4 lakhs and thereafter Rs.2.5 lakhs. They were charged for committing offences punishable under Section 363; Section 364-A and Section 120-B IPC. The appellants have remained in judicial custody since the time of their arrest which took place in the month of October 2000. They have remained behind bars for over 8 years. 2. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 24.2.2005, the learned Trial Judge has held them guilty of having committed offences punishable under Section 120-B and Section 364-A IPC. Vide order dated 26.2.2005, sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each; in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further period of one year each has been imposed. 3. The order on sentence reads as under:- "1. I have heard Addl. PP for State and the counsel for accused persons on the point of sentence. 2. The accused have been found guilty of conspiracy and kidnapping for ransom. No physical harm was however caused to the kidnapped child by the convicts. He returned safely to his parents. Therefore, it is not a case where the convicts deserve the extreme penalty of death. They are sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay Rs.1,000/- each as fine. In default of payment of fine, they will undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for further period of one year each. ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26-2-05." 4. In convicting the appellants, the learned Trial Judge has held that the evidence of PW-13 Shri Harshvardhan, Sr.Scientific Officer, FSL, Haryana, who proved his opinion given in the report Ex.PW-13/A, to the effect, that the letters Ex.P-1, P- 2 and P-3 are written by the same person who had written the specimen writings Ex.PW-12/C-12 to Ex.PW-12/C-19; specimen writings being those of accused Rakesh are sufficient to prove that the three letters containing demand for ransom have been written by accused Rakesh. Believing testimony of Sant Raj PW- 3, father of Angad, as also the testimony of Angad examined as PW-10, coupled with the testimony of the investigating officer Inspector Kulbhushan PW-7, SI Inderpal PW-4 and SI Sanjeev Verma PW-12, the learned Trial Judge has held that their testimonies establish that Angad was recovered from the custody of accused Suresh, who on interrogation, made disclosure statement Ex.PW-4/A and thereafter pointed out the house of co-accused Rajesh at village Dhakia Shobha near Tilhan, District Shahjahanpur, UP. Noting additionally the testimony of Angad and holding it to be worthy of acceptance the learned Trial Judge has held that the evidence establishes the involvement of the two appellants in the commission of the crime. 5. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution was that Angad who had gone to his school did not return home on 12.9.2000 and his father Sant Raj PW-3 came to the police station to lodge a missing person report, pursuant where to FIR Ex.PW-3/A was registered under Section 363 IPC on 12.9.2000. In spite of efforts, Angad could not be traced and that on 20.9.2000 Sant Raj came to the police station and handed over a letter, Ex.P-1, containing a demand