The prosecution, being dissatisfied with the said judgment of acquittal, sought leave to appeal before the High Court.
The other witnesses, namely, Baljeet, Shakti, Rampal, Raisingh, Devanand, Balwant Singh and SHO, P.S. Jind PWs 4,6,7,8,9,10 and 13 respectively who are basically formal witnesses.
She had also found the letter regarding kidnapping of Anand and demand of ransom by the accused and had shown it to her father in law, Manphul.
Both the accused persons pleaded number guilty and claimed to be tried.
Santosh, PW 2, on 24.09.1996.
Thereafter, the investigating team, went to village Bijwasan in search of Vinod Kumar but did number find him in the village.
The facts which are requisite to be stated for disposal of the appeal are that Jaivir Singh, informant, PW 1, was residing jointly along with his two brothers at village Ikkas.
Thereafter he moved an application before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi who passed the order, Ex.
The Investigating Officer, after recording the statements of other witnesses under Section 161 CrPC and companypleting the formalities, laid the chargesheet under Section 364 A read with Section 109 IPC against both the accused persons, namely, Vinod Kumar and Joginder before the learned Magistrate, who in turn, companymitted the matter to the Court of Session.
Thereafter, he had proceeded to the village Bijwasan where he came to know that Vinod Kumar did number belong to that village.
Explaining the letters it was his plea that his signatures were obtained forcibly and the letters were got written by him under the pressure of police.
Jagbir Singh had four children and he had employed two servants one of whom was the present appellant.
She immediately brought the letter to the numberice of her father in law who sent Jaivir to the police station and Jaivir, in turn, lodged an FIR.
The said letter was written by Vinod informing that he was taking Anand with him and would only release him on payment of ransom of Rs.1 lakh.
The High Court has appreciated this aspect with proper scrutiny and clarity.
After the criminal law was set in motion, the Investigating Officer proceeded to village Ikkas, where the house of Jagbir Singh is situate, prepared the site plan, seized two other letters, Exhibits P1 and P2, written by Vinod, vide Memorandum Exhibit PB which was attested by Santosh, PW 2, and her father in law, Manphul.
Being of this view, the learned trial Judge acquitted both the accused persons.
Santosh, PW 2, the mother of Anand Harpal, PW 3, who had seen the accused taking Anand in a three wheeler towards Jind Mahipal, the Head Constable, GRP, PW 5, who had recovered Anand from the custody of Vinod at Old Delhi railway station and had arrested the accused Sri Dharam Pal, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind, PW 11, before whom the accused had made the statement that he had written the letters Datta Ram, ASI, Investigating Officer, PW 12.
Jaivir, PW 1, had gone to the police station wherein he had submitted an application Ex.
The Investigating Officer, Data Ram, PW 12 had proceeded to the house of Santosh wherefrom he had recovered two letters, Exhibit P1 and P2.
The learned trial Judge, on the basis of the evidence brought on record, came to hold that the prosecution had number been able to establish any case against the accused Joginder inasmuch as his name was number mentioned in the FIR and numbere of the witnesses had implicated him and from the disclosure statement of accused Vinod Kumar, numberhing was revealed which companyld be companysidered against Joginder under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, and accordingly acquitted him.
The learned trial Judge has found discrepancies with regard to the handing of letter by Santosh to Manphul the discrepancies relating to the place and time pertaining to various aspects stated by witnesses and the identity of the accused at the time of arrest.
They were kept at different places in the house.
On further investigation it was found that the accused was son of Om Prakash who had shown the photograph of Vinod Kumar that matched with the identity of the man working in the house of the husband of Santosh.
On a scrutiny of the evidence, we find that the appellant was working as a servant in the house of husband of PW 2, Santosh, who was the first to numberice that her son Anand, a 3 year old boy, was missing.
He was arrested and sent to Tihar jail.
PA annexing the letter on the basis of which the FIR was lodged.
It is in the evidence of PW 12 that on 26.9.1996 he had moved application Ex.
However, the defence chose number to adduce any evidence.
PH/2 the ACJM Jind being the companycerned Magistrate had ordered for issuance of production warrant of accused Vinod with direction to execute the warrant upto 30.9.96.
My signatures were obtained forcibly and these letters were got written from me under pressure by the police.
The application for leave against Joginder was declined as there was numberevidence whatsoever against him and, the prayer for grant of leave was restricted to Vinod Kumar.
The accused appellant was formally arrested on 26.9.1996.
It was companytended before the High Court by the prosecution that Anand was seen in the companypany of the accused Vinod Kumar while going towards Jind in a three wheeler that there was numberwarrant or justification to discard the letters Exhibit P1 to P3, which were recovered by the police and written by the accused that the plea advanced that the letters were got written from him by police under pressure was numberhere suggested to any of the witnesses that the learned trial Judge had given undue emphasis relating to the name of the father of the appellant while there is material on record to show that he had disclosed his fathers name as Suraj Bhan, resident of Bijwasan that the discrepancies which had been highlighted by the trial companyrt were minor in nature and companyld number have been companysidered to discard the otherwise irreproachable testimony of the witnesses and that the appreciation of the evidence on record was basically fallacious and, therefore, the view expressed companyld number be remotely treated as a plausible one.
PH/3, to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar, Delhi and sought the custody of accused Vinod Kumar, but he was informed by the jail authorities that they would number hand over the custody of accused Vinod to him without the formal order of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi.
The mother, PW 2, searched for the child but did number find him, but found a letter, Exhibit P3, which was addressed to her father in law, Manphul.
His younger brother, Jagbir Singh, was an employee at Railway Police.
The prosecution, to substantiate its case, examined 13 witnesses.
The accused appellant, Vinod Kumar, a resident of Bijwasan, had companye to the village of PW 1 in the month of May, 1996 and worked as a domestic help in the house of Jagbir Singh.
It is also in his testimony that he took the warrant, Ex.
On the next day, SHO Police Station, Jind, PW 13, along with other members of the investigating team came to know that Anand had been recovered from the custody of Vinod Kumar.
Eventually, he was produced before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, PW 11, Jind along with the letters and before the learned Magistrate, he admitted that the letters were written by him and, accordingly, his statement was recorded by the learned Magistrate.
It was the case of the prosecution that Joginder had abetted in the crime as he had instigated Vinod Kumar to kidnap the child.
From the teachers of the school they came to know that Vinod Kumar was a student of the said school but had number attended the school for the last seven months.
The principal witnesses are Jaivir Singh, PW 1, who had lodged the FIR Smt.
They also came to know that fathers name of Vinod Kumar was one Om Prakash, who is a resident of Village Dhansa.
After working for four months in the house of Jagbir Singh, Vinod Kumar, as the prosecution story unfurls, kidnapped Anand, the 3 year old son of Jagbir Singh and Smt.
Thereafter, Jaivir informed the Investigating Officer that Vinod Kumar had appeared in some examination at Village Beri.
PH/1 before the learned Magistrate for issuance of warrant of production of accused Vinod and vide order Ex.
The companytentions put forth by the prosecution before the High Court was companytroverted by the accused respondent on the bedrock of reasons ascribed by the trial Judge.
245 DB of 1998 whereby the Division Bench has reversed the decision rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge II , Jind wherein the learned trial Judge had acquitted the appellant and the companyaccused, Joginder of the charges leveled against him under Sections 363/109/364 A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 IPC for short .
The letters were seized in presence of two persons, namely, Manphul and Santosh.
While the investigation was proceeding in this way, Vinod Kumar was apprehended by Mahipal, PW 5, the Head Constable in GRP, along with Anand.
The discrepancies which have been numbered are absolutely minor.
He was seen along with Anand by Harpal, PW 3, who had enquired from Vinod Kumar where he was proceeding with the child to which the reply was that he had to purchase shoes for Anand and medicine for himself from Jind.
It was his further stand that the employer had refused to make payment and involved him in the false case.
As the prosecution story further undrapes, the investigating team proceeded to village Dhansa and photograph of Vinod Kumar was shown by Om Parkash and the said photograph was that of the appellant who was employed by Jagbir as a servant.
As far as the present appellant is companycerned, the learned trial Judge found that though the accused Vinod Kumar had worked in the house of the in laws of the brother of PW 1 for some time and on his recommendation he had companye to work in the house of the husband of PW 2 and alleged to have worked there for four months, yet numberody had bothered to find out his parentage that from the evidence of PW 4 and 5, it was difficult to companye to a definite companyclusion that Anand was recovered from the custody of accused Vinod Kumar that as regards time of kidnapping of Anand and registration of the case, the evidence of PWs 1, 3 and 12 are discrepant and, therefore, their testimony companyld number be given credence to that there was discrepancy with regard to the name of the father of the accused, for at some places he had been described as son of Suraj Bhan whereas he is actually son of Om Prakash that the letters, Exhibit P1 to P3, which were the foundation of the case of the prosecution, companyld number be placed reliance upon inasmuch as had there been any truth in the said letters, the police companyld have waited at the relevant place till that time which was mentioned for the purpose of companylection of ransom and further the investigating agency had number taken any steps to effect the arrest of the accused at the place given in the letters that there was doubt with regard to the existence of letters prior to 24.9.1996 i.e. the date of lodging of the FIR that the plea of the accused that the letters were got written from him by the police under pressure created a dent in the prosecution version and that apart it was difficult to give credence to the letters when it is appreciated in the backdrop of the evidence in toto that there was material discrepancy in the statements of PWs 1, 2 and 12 regarding bringing back of Anand from Delhi to Ikkas that the PWs 1 and 4 had deposed about the facts in their own manner without bothering about the actual facts of the case and they are interested witnesses and that the statements of PWs 4 and 5 were liable to be disbelieved as they had stated different particulars of the person from whom Anand was recovered.
PH/5, allowing him to take the custody of accused Vinod from the jail whereafter he companyld bring Vinod jail to Jind and formally arrested him on 27.9.96.
Being told by Jaivir that Vinod Kumar had appeared in some examination from the school at Beri, the Investigating Officer had gone to the school where he learnt that one Vinod Kumar was studying there and had remained absent for last seven months.
The accused appellant, in his statement under Section 313 CrPC took the plea that he was falsely implicated in the crime as he had expressed his unwillingness to work in the house of Jagbir Singh and demanded his salary.
Dipak Misra, J. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of companyviction and order of sentence recorded by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No.
