Pa m m i told that they are his friends and he had been blessed with a son, so they ca m e to give him a sweet box.
G o o d a m o u nt can be got.
This appeal by way of special leave has been filed by Lohit Kaushal, w h o along with several others stands companyvicted for offences punishable under Sections 364 A, 342 read with Sec.120 B of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo imprison m e nt for life for the offence under Sec.364 A read with Sec.120 B and to one years R.I. under Sec.342 read with Sec.120 B, along with fine in both cases.
Four appeals filed at their instance were also dismissed by the High Court leading to the present appeal by Lohit Kaushl in this Court.
O n 27/2/2002, information was received by Inspector M a n ge Ra m that the kidnappers were de m a n ding Rs.60 lakhs as ranso m and on receipt of the a m o u nt they w o uld free the child near G urud w ara Dukhniwaran Sahib, Patiala.
A Tata Su m o vehicle bearing Registration No.
As per the prosecutions case the appellant had received a severe set back in his business and being aware of the financial status of SukhjitSinghs 2 family he planned to kidnap Arshdeep Kaur for ranso m. As per parents were e m ployed Arshdeep was left in a Creche in the m orning by her parents and she w o uld return to the ho m e of M o hinder Kaur, her m aternal grand m other after school hours.
O n 3/3/2002 Lovepreet Kaur made a disclosure leading to the recovery of the clothes that Arshdeep had been wearing at the time of the kidnapping.
Sub Inspector M a n ge Ra m acco m p a nied by Sukhjit Singh Arshdeeps father reached the pre determined place, w hich was a ST D booth near the G urud w ara and found Lovepreet Kaur along with the child inside the booth.
They also asked M o hinder Kaur to give the m so m e water.
Par minder M o h a n thereafter tied her hands, shifted her to another roo m and after picking up Arshdeep and a video cassette player from the house, drove away in a Tata Su m o vehicle.
About 6 m o nths back Lohit ca m e back from Australia.
Pursuant to Lovepreet Kaurs sustained interrogation Satna m Kaur was arrested on 28/2/2002, and pursuant to her interrogation, Lohit Kaushal, the appellant herein, was taken into custody and a M aruti Car No.
During this period Lohit went to Australia.
The appellant, along with his wife Satna m Kaur, on hearing the ne w s about the kidnapping and pretending to be companycerned relatives, also visited M o hinder Kaurs house and arranged that she be sent to the General hospital,Panchkula, for her m e dical exa mination.
W o m a n asked the m to sit in the drawing roo m and they 11 de m a n d e d water.
Ad mittedly the statements, did number lead to the recovery of any item w hatsoever.
The accused were, ho w ever, ultimately companyvicted and sentenced by the trialCourt as m e ntioned above.
O n the companym pletion of the investigation the accused were charged for the aforesaid offences.
She also asked Lohit and Se m m i as to w h ether girllikes chocolates or toffees, so that she m ay be kept m u m on her weeping.
The m atter was ho w ever settled at Rs.21 lakhs.
O n the sa m e day Par minder M o h a n, M a njit Singh, Nand Kishore and Sunil Ku m ar were also apprehended.
She was im m e diately arrested and the child was freed and handed over to her father.
W e m o ve d ahead our vehicle followed by the vehicle of Pa m m i etc.
P.C. recorded.
This girlsgrand m other Nani M o hinder Kaur w h o stays with her son Harjit Singh and daughter in law Jaspreet at H.No.527 Sector 12 A Panchkula, both of the m are in service.
After seeking location, Pa m m i has asked on telephone to reach Panchkula fully prepared for m a king the plan a success.
After m a king plan, Pa m m i etc after carrying out the w ork went away and we both we nt to our house.
Lohit and I for distribution of invitation cards for m arriage we nt to our relatives.
O n their way back from the duty in the evening M u m m y Pap of Arshdeep taken her to ho m e. With the intention of taking revenge from Harpreet and for grabbing m o n ey because Lohit was facing m u c h loss in his business.
Mithu also ca m e up at that time.
He did companym e to attend the m arriage of m y sister at Panchkula with w h o m I developed relation.
I and Lohit advised Pa m m i Nittu that we will stop our vehicle at about 100 away from the kothi,you run away after doing the w ork and Pa m m i got a packet of sweets from Zirakpur.
They found M o hinder Kaur and Arshdeep in the companyrtyard of the first floor of the house, and enquired about Sukhjit Singh and SaravjitKaur and told M o hinder Kaur that Par minder M o h a n had been blessed with a son and they had companym e to deliver a box of mithai to celebrate the occasion.
Pursuant to a companyspiracy hatched by the appellant, Par minder M o h a n Pa m m i and Lovepreet Kaur, both well kno w n to M o hinder Kaur and her family, we nt to the house of M o hinder Kaur at about 1.30 p.m. on 25/8/2002, w hile Sukhjit Singh and Saravjit Kaur were at w ork.
They all caught hold of old w o m a n. Pa m m i shut her m o uth and she lifted the girl and took her to the vehicle standing do w n. Mithu kept standing on the upper gate.
After 5/6 m o nths of the m arriage I and Lohit started quarreling with each other and it companytinued for 1 1/2 year.
In order to execute this plan we started keeping an eye on the HarjitSinghs House and the girl.
Pa m m i and she said Na m a ste to the w o m a n. Pa m m i asked that w here was Sukhjit Singh, w h o used to w ork in Lalru and they had companym e at wrong place.
After m e eting Pa m m i and Nand Kishore Nittu we four planned that Harjit Singhs sister and Saukhjit Singh is a solid party.
After so m etime, w he n they ca m e do w n, she sa w a V C P in the hands of Nitu.
Pa m m i talked on m o bile in the way and got the vehicle stopped near A m argarh.
She ho w ever m a d e an improve m e nt at the time of the trial about her suspicion vis a vis the appellant and was duly companyfronted with the o mission.
Lohit Kaushal and Se m m i stopped their vehicle on the back turning and as per planning, they stopped their vehicle in front of kothi number527, Sector 12 A, Panchkulla.
Her only daughter aged three year is darling to her.
She companytinued to keep companytact on phone and de m a n d e d her m o n ey.
In their statements under Sec.313 of Cr.
A m a n ca m e there on a m otorcycle, and Pa m m i took the girlfrom her and handover to that person w h o ca m e there on m otorcycle.
She had to do only that she w o uld take the girlaged about three years in her lap with live and sit in the vehicle.
Likewise and at the instance of M a njit Singh, a V C P along with its remote companytrol were also recovered.
As per information of Lohit and Se m m i, this girl used to companym e to kothi No.527, Section 12 A, Panchkula to her grand m other for four five hours.
The Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula, ho w ever, by his order dated 4/3/2002 discharged Satna m Kaur, Lohit Kaushals wife, Nand Kishore Mithu and Sunil Ku m ar Rinku for lack of evidence, but proceeded with the trialwith respect to the other accused.
They started at 10.00 A.M. w he n they reached at Local Bus Stand Zirakpur at about 1.00 P.M. Lohit and Satna m Kaur m et the m, w h o were in a M aruti car of blue companyour and talked to Lohit and Se m m i, after getting do w n. S w eets box was also purchased from there.
I Lohits relation, his uncle Ma m a Sh.
They pleaded number guilty and were brought to trial.
Satna m Kaurs statement is on record and we have very carefully perused the sa m e. It reads as under In 1995 year I was m arried to Lohit Ku m ar S o Diwaker Kaushal r o Delhi.
W h o s e all w h ere about I kno w. He can be available with his friend at Delhi, G haziabad, M eerut.
Next day after planning the kidnapping the niece Bhanji of Harjit,for ranso m I and Lohit we nt to Pa m m is house at Dhuri.
In the m e a ntime two other persons, one being M a njit Singh alias Mithu, also ca m e into the roo m and also asked for water and as M o hinder Kaur went into the kitchen, M a njit Singh followed her, caught hold of her and brought her into the bedroo m. Par minder M o h a n, thereafter, caught hold of her arm w hereas M a njit Singh shut her m o uth and tied her with a dupatta and the fourth unna m e d accused m a n h a n dled her.
P.C. the accused pleaded innocence and alleged false implication and further pleaded that they had been involved on account of suspicion.
After kidnapping her, they companyld get the good a m o u nt and leave the girl.
Jagdish R o Dhuri was given the invitation card for m arriage.
Pa m m i told that m o n ey w o uld be given after receipt.At about one O clock in a w hite companyoured Tata Su m o, Pa m m i and Nittu ca m e along with a girl and two boys, and on seeing up they halted.
After that on the subject being numbersed, I and Lohit we nt to Harjits house and kept an eye on the happening and the situation was companyveyed to Pa m m i but Pa m m is de m a n d for Rs.60 lacs created horror in the entire family we also never expected that he willde m a n d so m u c h. O n seeing the situation w orsened, we on phone informed Pa m m i to return the girl.
H R01 E 7582 was also produced before the police by its o w ner, P W.3 Sarwan Singh and was taken into possession.
C H 01 4565, w hich had allegedly been 4 used w hile kidnapping the child, was seized by the police.
The only other effective piece of evidence that the Courts below have relied upon are the disclosure statements of Satna m Kaur and Lovepreet Kaur, recorded by the police w hile they were in police custody as companyaccused.
It can get him apprehended on identification statement of the accused is recorded separately w hich is signed by the accused and the witnesses.
In this situation the learned companynsel for the appellant has pointed out that there was absolutely numberevidence against the appellant and that he appeared to have been roped in on account of suspicion being a close relative of the companym plainant party as his adverse circu mstances were well kno w n within the family circle.
The vehicle of the creche leave Arshdeep girl with her Nani w h o loves her.
Lovepreet Kaurs statement has number been filed with the Supre m e Court record but it has been paraphrased by the trial Court in its judg m e nt and we reproduce the sa m e herein below 10 During interrogation, Lovepreet Kaur alias Preeti wife of Virender Singh m a d e disclosure statement that on 25.02.2002 at about 8.00 P.M. phone was received from her fast friend na m ely Pa m m i that she should reach at Dhuri P C O. She reached at Dhuri P C O at about 8.30 P.M. from Sangrur.
At right time m y husband also escaped from there.
A telephonic 3 m e ssage was companyveyed by M o hinder Kaurs neighbour Harjinderpal Singh to police station, Sector 19, Panchkula on w hich Sub Inspector Avtar Singh reached the kidnap site and recorded the statement of M o hinder Kaur and on its basis an FIR was registered by Sub Inspector O m Parkash.
Pa m m i told him to stand on the gate and she started to feed the girl.
She was dropped at Dhuri by pass and she went to Sangrur.
W e have also been informed by the learned companynsel for the parties that the other accused had absconded after they had been granted bail by the High Court at the time of the ad mission of their appeals, and are, as of numberw, number traceable.
As per planning, Mithu w h o was the Driver brought a Tata Su m o of w hite companyour, w h ose nu m b er she did number kno w but Indian on the front mirror and Deol in English were written.
After m arriage Harjit Singh started torturing m y sister nu m b er of times he was advised but he used to assault for w hich m y sister companym plained to m e nu m b er of times w h o m m y husband Lohit also tried to advice him, he quarreled with Lohit also and uttered numbersense w ords to Lohit for w hich Lohit felt upset.
As per plan, I and Lohit waited after reaching Zirakpur.
She and Pa m m i sa w the old w o m a n and s m all girl sitting in the companyrtyard of first floor of the kothi.
In the m e a n w hile, phone from Lohit had companym e of Pa m m i. Lohit and Satna m Kaur alias Se m m i, w h o were earlier kno w n to her also told about the planning.
The prosecution in support of its case placed reliance on the statement of P W.1 M o hinder Kaur, P W.2 SukhjitSingh, P W.3 S w aran Singh w h o deposed that M a njit Singh had borrowed his Tata Su m o vehicle on 25/2/2002 at about 9.00 a.m. and had returned itthe sa m e evening at about 5.00 p.m. as had been pro mised to by him, P W.5 Sub Inspector O m Prakash, P W.11 Sub Inspector Avtar Singh and 5 P W.12 Inspector M a n ge Ra m a m o n g st others.
He further told that niece Arshdeep of Harjit Singh, w h o is sandhu of Lohit being only one daughter of rich parents.
During this period I and Lohit remained at m y m others House No.552 Sector 25 Panchkula.
and reached Sector 12 A Panchkula.
They all sat in the vehicle and sped away from there in the vehicle.
At the time, Pa m m i son of Jagdish Chand caste Pandit, Nitu son of Naresh Chand residents of Dhri, Sunil Ku m ar alias Rinku resident of Dhuri were sitting at ST D P C O. Pa m m i told her that she w o uld be given good a m o u nt in one trip.
If the girl weeps, then she w o uld keep her m u m and she will get Rs.20,000/ for the w ork.
It has also been sub mitted that neither M o hinder Kaur number any of the other witnesses had na m e d the appellant at any stage except at the trial and that too in uncertain terms that they suspected that he had been instrumental in arranging the kidnapping for the purpose of ranso m. It has been highlighted that the only two incriminating circu mstances against the appellant 6 were the so called disclosure statements m a d e by Satna m Kaur the appellants wife, and Lovepreet Kaur, a companyaccused, subsequent to their arrest na ming him as the m ain companyspirator and secondly the recovery of the M aruti car from him at the time of his arrest.
During this period our relatives got patched up our differences.
W hile going for duty they leave the girlat Sector 12 A 9 Panchkula Creche.
Harjits Sister Sarabjit Kaur with her husband Sukhjit Singh stays at H.No.4079 H 32 Sec.20 Panchkula.
During this period m y younger sister Jaspreet Kaur got engaged to Harjit Singh S o Sajjan Singh R o H.No.527 Sector 12 A, Panchkula.
There we m et Par minder M o h a n Pa m m i w h o se companyversation impressed m e a lot and I in person invited him to attend the m arriage.
The old w o m a n brought two glasses of water from the kitchen and they took it.
During that period the old w o m a n stays alone at ho m e. There Sukhjit Singh and his wife Sarabjit Kaur are also in service.
Sukhjit Singh, father of Arshdeep, was e m ployed in a private factory and earning as per his statement Rs.70 80 thousand per m o nth w hile Saravjit Kaur w h o was w orking as a Lecturer in the G overn m e nt College, Narayangarh, was also drawing a handso m e salary.
As already numbered above, the appellant w h o was well kno w n to M o hinder Kaur being a close relative, did number invite any suspicion about his involve ment at the time w he n the FIR had been lodged and her statement under Sec.161 Cr.
In the m e a n w hile, Nitu and Sunil also ca m e up and they also de m a n d e d drinking water.
