Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
DECIDED ON : 4 October, 2013
+ CRL.A.309/2001
KALLU
..... Appellant
Through : Ms.Yashita Munjal, Advocate.
versus
STATE OF GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
..... Respondent
Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP for the State.
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J. (ORAL)
1. Kallu (the appellant) challenges the correctness of a
judgment dated 18.04.2001 in Sessions Case No.59/2000 arising out of
FIR No.112/2000 registered at Police Station Gokalpuri by which he was
held guilty for committing offence under Section 363 IPC. By an order
dated 19.04.2001 he was sentenced to undergo RI for seven years with
fine `10,000/-.
2. Allegations against the appellant were that on 14.03.2000,
complainant-Ganga Vishal Yadav lodged report with the police that his
son Manoj aged 6 years was missing. On 15.03.2000 at about 05.00 P.M.
Crl.A.No.309/2001 Page 1 of 4
a telephone call was received on his phone No.2264953 at his house
which was attended by his wife Smt.Nirmla. The caller demanded ransom
amount of `1,00,000/- to release the child which was in his custody or else
threatened to kill him. He disclosed his name as Kallu. In subsequent
conversation on telephone with the caller, Ram Pratap-brother of Ganga
Vishal Yadav told him that the amount of `1,00,000/- would be given for
the release of the child and they asked the caller to have a talk with the
child. The voice of the child was identified. The complainant-Ganga
Vishal Yadav went to tempo stand with ransom amount of `1.00,000/-.
The matter was reported to the police. On 16.03.2000 the complainant
with the police team arrived at Fatehpur. A telephone call was made to
Kallu at about 06.45 P.M. The child was recovered from the bushes
situated near the Dalmow Road. Kallu was arrested and interrogated. He
led the police team to Bobby STD booth owned by Kailash Gupta from
where he had made telephone calls. Statement of witnesses conversant
with the facts were recorded. After completion of investigation, a charge-
sheet under Section 363/364A IPC was submitted against him in the court.
The prosecution examined 11 witnesses. In his 313 statement the
appellant pleaded false implication. He examined Ram Kishore (DW-1)
and Mohd.Rafiq (DW-2) in defence. On appreciating the evidence and
Crl.A.No.309/2001 Page 2 of 4
after considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court by the
impugned judgment convicted the appellant under Section 363 IPC and
sentenced him accordingly. He was acquitted of the charge under Section
364A IPC. The State did not challenge his acquittal under Section 364A
IPC.
3. During the course of arguments, appellant’s counsel on
instructions, stated at Bar that the appellant has opted not to challenge the
finding of the Trial Court on conviction for the offence under Section 363
IPC and accepts it voluntarily. She, however, prayed to take lenient view
as the appellant has already remained in custody for substantial period in
this case and has clean antecedents. The learned Additional Public
Prosecutor has no objection to consider the mitigating circumstances to
modify the sentence order. Since the appellant has opted not to challenge
the conviction under Section 363 IPC and there is overwhelming evidence
in the testimony of PWs, the findings of the Trial Court on conviction
under Section 363 IPC are affirmed. The appellant was sentenced to
undergo RI for seven years with fine `10,000/-. Nominal roll dated
15.11.2010 reveals that he has remained in custody for three years, seven
months and two days as on 20.10.2003. He also earned remission for
eight months and 21 days as on 15.11.2010. He is a first offender and was
Crl.A.No.309/2001 Page 3 of 4
not involved in any criminal case. His overall jail conduct was
satisfactory. After suspension of sentence and enlargement on bail on
19.09.2003 his involvement in any criminal case has not surfaced. The
prosecution was unable to establish the charge under Section 364A IPC
whereby the child was kidnapped for ransom. The appellant was aged
about 18 years on the date of incident. Nominal roll dated 15.11.2010
records his age 23 years. At the time of addressing arguments on the
point of sentence, age of the appellant was claimed 17 years at the time of
commission of offence and this facts finds mention in the sentence order.
The police had recorded his age in the charge-sheet as 19 years. Taking
into consideration all these mitigating circumstances, the sentence of the
appellant is modified and the appellant is sentenced to undergo the period
already spent by him in this case.
4. The appeal stands disposed of. Trial Court record, if any,
along with copy of this order be sent back to the Trial Court. Bail bond
and surety bond of the appellant stand discharged. Superintendent Jail be
informed.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
October 04, 2013/ sa
Crl.A.No.309/2001 Page 4 of 4