Sri Om v. The State of NCT of Delhi

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

ARUNA SURESH, J.

February 26, 2009 mm

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI Judgment reserved on : February 19, 2009 % Judgment delivered on : February 26, 2009 + CRL.A. 685/2006 SRI OM ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sumeet Verma, Advocate versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Pawan Sharma, Advocate CRL.A. 125/2001 KALIM AHMED ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Sumeet Verma, Advocate versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Pawan Sharma, 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. Written submissions have been filed by learned counsel for the appellants. After narrating the facts of the case, the legal submissions made have been penned in paras 6 to 17 of the written submissions. We reproduce the same. They read as under:- "6. It is respectfully submitted that the alleged demand of ransom has not been satisfactorily proven by the prosecution in this case and in the absence of the ransom demand (or any direction to do or abstain from doing any act, which is not the case here) the alleged offence would come out of the rigors of Section 364A IPC and would be punishable under Section 365/363 IPC for which the maximum prescribed sentence is 7 years. 7. Admittedly, there is no Ransom Note in this case. No ransom was demanded from the father either on phone or even when he had gone to the Kanth Bus stand. Admittedly the father of the child (PW-1) did not even take the allegedly demanded sum of Rs.50,000/- to recover his child from the kidnappers. 8. The prosecution has not led any evidence whatsoever that there was no telephone connection or mobile phone in the residence of PW-1 or that it was out of order at the relevant time. 9. That PW-2, who was residing in a different gali near the house of PW-1, admittedly did not identify the voice of the caller to be of any accused persons. The prosecution has miserably failed to link the accused persons with the alleged telephone call since neither the telephone number nor the place from where the alleged call was made has been established by the prosecution. Reliance is placed upon the judgment in Netra Pal Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) [2001 (2) JCC (Del) 27] wherein in paras 10 and 11 this hon"ble court followed the Division Bench of Bombay High Court in Mohammad Rashid Ansari Vs. State {II (1998) CCR 608 (DB) as follows:- "11. In that case the minor boy was kidnapped and it was alleged by the prosecution that a telephone call came from an anonymous person at the place of business of the uncle of the kidnapped boy. It was disclosed through telephone conversation that the kidnapped boy Gururaj was taken to Agra and that a ransom amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was demanded on telephone from the uncle of the kidnapped boy. Court after going through the record concluded that the ransom theory and that of telephone call were not established. There was no corroborative piece of evidence to establish that there was an anonymous call and that ransom demanded. It was in this background the Court observed that:- "16. What we are therefore left with is the mere possibility amounting almost to certainty as to there being some motive for the entire exercise. However, what may be there cannot be raised to level of "must", unless there is material warranting the conclusion." 10. It is respectfully submitted that in the Mohammad Rashid Ansari"s case supra, the alleged telephonic ransom demand was not only traced but the same was tape-recorded as well with the aid of Telephone department. However, the said evidence was considered not worth reliance since the voice of the person who allegedly talked at the other end of the telephone when the conversation came to be taped, was not before the court and therefore, it was held that the necessary proof to link the voice recorded and the person whose voi