Crl.A No.887/2005 Page 1 of 23 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI, AT NEW DELHI Crl.A No.887/2005 % Judgment delivered on 9th January, 2009 # Raj Kumar @ Pappu .... Appellant Through : Mr. Manoj Sharma, Adv. Versus $ The State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi .... Respondent ^ Through : Ms. Richa Kapoor, APP CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. CHATURVEDI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI 1.Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? Yes 2.To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes G.S.SISTANI, J. 1. The present appeal has been filed under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, “CrPC”) against the Judgment dated 20.07.2005 and the Order of Sentence dated 21.07.2005, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, in Sessions Case No. 113/01, FIR No. 353/2000 of Police Station Kalyanpuri, Delhi. The accused was charged under section 364A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, “IPC”) and post trial, was found to be guilty of the said Crl.A No.887/2005 Page 2 of 23 offence and was thus sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for Life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of the payment of fine, the appellant was to undergo a further Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months. 2. The brief facts of the case as noticed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the judgment under challenge are as under. 3. On 17.10.2000, Arun Kumar lodged a complaint with the police that on 07.10.2000, Anand Pratap Singh @ Bablu and Rudra Pratap Singh @ Arvind Kumar (related as uncle and nephew), left their respective houses without leaving behind any intimation. Attempts were made by their family members to search them but they could not be traced. On 16.10.2000, at about 9.00 am, a missing report regarding Anand Pratap Singh and Rudra Pratap Singh, was lodged by Arun Kumar (brother of Anand Pratap Singh) at the Police Station of Kalyanpuri, Delhi. On the same day at about 2 p.m., Arun Kumar received a registered letter purported to have been sent by Ram Rattan Singh Gujjar, Dasyuraj Samrat, Village Badanpur, Police Station Sahso, District Etawah. The said letter disclosed about the abduction of Anand Pratap Singh @ Bablu. Similar letter with respect to abduction of Rudra Pratap Singh was received by Bhanu Pratap Singh (brother of Rudra Pratap Singh) on the same day. Ransom amount of Rs.6,51,000/- and Rs.2,51,000/- Crl.A No.887/2005 Page 3 of 23 respectively, was demanded for the release of the two said abducted persons. 4. SI, Kishore Pandey, PW-7, had investigated this case. PW-7 deposed that in the month of November, 2000, he formed a police party and went to Etawah at the address mentioned in the letter of Ram Rattan Singh Gujjar and that he and his police party had tried to trace out the said abducted persons, but of no avail. 5. On 29.11.2000, both the victims, Anand Pratap Singh and Rudra Pratap Singh came to the police station themselves and made the following revelations before the police. They stated that the appellant, Raj Kumar @ Pappu was known to Anand Pratap Singh for the last ten years and that they had developed a good friendship. Anand Pratap Singh used to carry on the business of fire alarm system at Malviya Nagar but was not happy with the income that he was generating and he had also discussed this fact with Raj Kumar @ Pappu. About ten/twelve days prior to the Dussehra festival, appellant Raj Kumar @ Pappu, told Anand Pratap Singh that there was a party dealing with the Fire Alarm System at Aligarh. Anand Pratap Singh expressed his desire to meet the party. Thereafter, appellant Raj Kumar asked Anand Pratap Singh to be ready to meet them at Aligarh on 07.10.2000. Rudra Pratap Singh, nephew of Anand Pratap Singh, was unemployed during those days and when Anand Crl.A No.887/2005 Page 4 of 23 Pratap Singh disclosed the fact that there was a meeting with a party at Aligarh, to Rudra Pratap Singh, he also agreed to accompany him, as he thought that he might get a job there. 6. On 7.10.2000 the appellant came to Anand Pratap Singh and then these three persons, i.e., the appellant Raj Kumar @ Pappu; Anand Pratap Singh; and Rudra Pratap Singh went to Shahdra Railway Station in a bus. After that they boarded the EMU train, arrived at Ghaziabad and from there they took the Gomti Express at 3.05 p.m. for going to Aligarh and arrived at Aligarh at about 5/5.30 pm. When they came out of Aligarh Station, the appellant separated himself from them. After sometime, the appellant along with five other persons arrived there in a Tata Sumo. Thereafter they proceeded towards Etawah and at about 10.30 pm, they stopped the vehicle. The appellant and the abovesaid five persons handed over both Anand Pratap Singh and Rudra Pratap Singh to 10-12 persons, who were wearing police uniform and were equipped with guns. The appellant, Raj Kumar @ Pappu and five other persons thereafter left. Both the victims were made to travel on foot upto a distance of 18-20 Kms. in the jungle and were told that they had been abducted and that Ram Rattan Singh Gujjar was their leader. The victims were asked to write Crl.A No.887/2005 Page 5 of 23 ransom letters demanding a sum of Rs.6,51,000/- and Rs.2,51,000/- respectively. 7. On 27.11.2000, Ram Rattan Singh Gujjar and his companions took a large number of drinks and then under the influence of intoxication, all of them slept. Both the victims chose a moment and slipped away, escaped by catching a truck and arrived at Etawah. From Etawah, they boarded a train to Delhi. 8. On 5.5.2001, the appellant was arrested by Rajesh Kumar, SI. It may be mentioned here that both the ransom letters have been purported to be written on the letter pad of Ram Rattan Singh Gujjar. The following address in Hindi appears on the head of the letter pad. “DASYURAJ Ram Rattan Singh Gurjar Village Bandanpura PS Sahso Distt. Etawah UP-M.P.” 9. Accused Ram Rattan Singh Gujjar could not be traced and was declared a proclaimed offender. Search was effected in respect of the accused Kailash and Rajbir, whose names were disclosed by accused Raj Kumar @ Pappu but they too, could not be traced. Raj Kumar @ Pappu was arrested and booked for the offence under Section 364-A, IPC. The statement of the accused appellant was recorded under Crl.A No.887/2005 Page 6 of 23 Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter, “CrPC”). 10. In this case, the prosecution has examined ten witnesses and one witness has been adduced from the side of the defence. It would be useful, at this stage, to analyse the evidence of some of the material witnesses and refer to them in detail. 11. Anand Pratap Singh who is PW-1, is also one of the victims. PW-1 has deposed that he knew the appellant, Raj Kumar for about 7-8 years prior to the date of the incident and that the appellant was residing at Noida in a jhuggi. PW-1 stated that he used to visit a betel shop situated at Sector 8, Noida, and there he came into the contact of appellant and developed friendship with Raj Kumar @ Pappu. PW-1 further stated that at the request of the appellant, he arranged a rented accommodation for him at 1/20, Trilokpuri. The appellant resided there with his family for two to three years and thereafter left the said address but continued to visit PW-1‟s house. 12. PW-1 further deposed that he was unhappy with the income that he was getting at Fire Works System, at which place he was working and that he had asked the appellant to search a better job for him. PW-1 stated that about two to three days prior to the Dusshera Festival, the appellant approached him with an offer to meet a party at Aligarh on Crl.A No.887/2005 Page 7 of 23 7.10.2000. On the above mentioned date PW-1 along with his jobless nephew (Rudra Pratap Singh), and the appellant went to Aligarh. PW-1 further testified that at Aligarh the appellant left them for sometime at the pretext of making a phone call and when he returned he was in a vehicle, Sumo, accompanied by five other persons. PW-1 then stated that those five persons put a tamancha (katta) on his temporal region and he was ordered to sit inside the vehicle. And that his nephew was slapped by the appellant and was asked to sit inside the vehicle. Thereafter the said five persons and the appellant put a bandage on their eyes and drove off for three to four hours. When the vehicle was stopped both PW- 1 and his nephew were asked to follow ten to twelve persons who were standing there, wearing police uniforms and had guns with them. PW-1 further stated that while they were following those ten to twelve persons inside the jungle, the appellant and his five associates separated themselves and disappeared. Thereafter PW-1 and his nephew were told that they had been abducted and that Ram Rattan Singh Gujjar was their leader. PW-1 also deposed that they were beaten up; were made to carry the goods and baggage of those men as they used to shift places frequently; were kept in fetters during the nights; and were eventually asked to write ransom letters to their respective families by Ram Rattan Singh Gujjar. PW-1 further stated that, however, on Crl.A No.887/2005 Page 8 of 23 27.11.2000, the dacoits were celebrating something and consumed a lot of alcohol, they got so intoxicated that they forgot to put PW-1 and his nephew in fetters and then the two ran away. They kept running the entire night through the jungle, and when they reached a road they took lift from a truck and reached Etawah. From there they boarded a train and reached Delhi at about 10:30 p.m. on 28.11.2000. 13. PW-1 then deposed that on 29.11.2000, he along with his nephew and other family members went to the Police Station of Kalyanpuri and narrated the entire incident to the police officials. PW-1 further deposed that on 5.5.2001, he along with his nephew and another person Mukesh were standing at the bus stand of Mother Dairy when they spotted Raj Kumar inside the bus of route no. 118, coming from the side of Laxmi Nagar. They brought down the appellant, Raj Kumar from the said bus and took him to the Police Station. 14. PW-1 deposed that Ram Rattan Singh Gujjar wrote a letter on his letter pad „Dasuraj‟ and that he was made to write on the back side of the said letter regarding demand of ransom. He proved the letter Ex. P-1 and testified that its portion Ex.P-2 is in his hand writing and bears his signature at point A. He deposed that the letter Ex.P-1 was written by Ram Rattan Singh Gujjar himself. Crl.A No.887/2005 Page 9 of 23 15. Rudra Pratap Singh who is the nephew of PW-1 and is also PW-2, has supported the entire version of the prosecution‟s case. PW-2 also stated that the said dacoit wrote the letter Ex. PW2/A and on its back the contents which are marked as Ex. PW2/B are in his hand writing. PW-2 also proved his signature thereon. 16. Arun Kumar, PW3 (brother of Anand Pratap Singh), has supported the prosecution story. He also proved the letter from Dasuraj that was received by him and has identified the writing and the signature of PW-1 on it. PW3 has also proved the complaint made by him as Ex. PW 3/A. 17. Shashi Pratap Singh, PW-4, is the elder brother of Rudra Pratap Singh. He also received the letter, Ex. PW 2/A, and identified the writing of his brother on its back as Ex. PW 2/B. 18. Shri Gian Srisvastav, PW-9, was posted as a Postal Assistant in Head Post Office, Etawah. He deposed that the envelope, Ex. PW 9/A was received in their office for booking, and that it was addressed to Bhanu Pratap Singh, Trilokpuri, Delhi. PW-9 deposed that after making an entry in their office at Etawah, RMS for delivering it to the addressee, the same was dispatched. 19. Rest of the witnesses produced by the prosecution are police witnesses. HC, Prem Kumar, PW-5, deposed to have recorded the statement of Gian Srivastava. HC, Shyam Crl.A No.887/2005 Page 10 of 23 Singh, PW-6, took a rukka to the Police Station and got this case registered. Shalinder Singh, PW-8 assisted the I.O. during investigation of this case. SI, Kishore Pandey, PW-7, and Rajesh Kumar, PW-10, had investigated this case. 20. In his statement recorded under section 313 CrPC, the appellant, Raj Kumar @ Pappu admitted that he was a friend of Anand Pratap Singh. The appellant stated that Anand Pratap and Rudra Pratap came to him to enquire about the address of Rajbir and Kailash; that he also went with them and that they were released after taking money. The appellant stated that he has been framed in the case. 21. The learned defence counsel had examined Hari Singh, DW- 1, and who is also a friend of the appellant. DW-1 explained that some eight to ten years ago, he was coming back alongwith Raj Kumar @ Pappu when he was accosted by one person whose name he did not recollect. DW-1 testified that that person had threatened him and had taken Raj Kumar to Police Post Dallupura. And he did not know as to what happened thereafter. DW-1 further deposed that after about one and a half years back, when he went to the house of the appellant, Raj Kumar, the wife of the appellant had told him that some unknown person had taken appellant to Police Post about one and half years back. There he came to know that the accused is in jail. In his cross-examination, he explained that the appellant hails from Etawah. DW-1 could Crl.A No.887/2005 Page 11 of 23 not tell as to from where the appellant was arrested. And further could not tell whether the appellant was involved in a kidnapping case or not. 22. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the judgment of the Trial Court is based only on surmises and conjectures; is contrary to law. It is also contended that the learned trial court failed to weigh the evidence and probabilities of the case. 23. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted before us that it is beyond imagination that a person who is not a man of means and was doing a job on a monthly salary of Rs. 3000/- and was searching for a better job, a huge sum of Rs. 6,51,000/- and for another jobless person Rs. 2,51,000/- would be demanded for their release. The learned counsel submits that on the one hand as per the prosecution the appellant was asked by PW-1 that his income was not sufficient to run his family, so he wanted some other job and he requested the appellant to search for another job for him and on the other hand the prosecution claims that the appellant had a hand in the kidnapping of PW-1 & 2 for ransom. The counsel argued that it is beyond imagination that a person who knows the family background and financial position of a particular person would help in getting such person kidnapped for a huge sum of ransom. Crl.A No.887/2005 Page 12 of 23 24. The learned counsel also submitted that the depositions of the two prime witnesses, who are also thevictims, Anand Pratap Singh (PW-1) and Rudra Pratap Singh (PW-2), are a thicket of contradictions. The learned counsel argued that the Trial Court erred in believing the depositions of the prosecution witnesses which are self-contradictory. And that the statement of PW-1 is full of material contradictions which go to the root of the matter and creates a doubt whether the appellant had a hand in the commission of the alleged crime or not. 25. Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the place where PW-1 and PW-2 were forced to sit in a Tata Sumo, was not a lonely place. It is, thus, unnatural that they did not raise any alarm to attract the attention of the people around. The same being an unnatural conduct on their part creates a doubt whether anything as alleged has happened or not. 26. Also according to the learned counsel for the appellant there was no occasion for PW-3 to lodge a missing person report in the light of the version of PW-1 that he had informed his mother about going to Aligarh. 27. The learned counsel also argued that there is no evidence that Ex. P-1 and Ex. PW-2A, were written by the same person. And moreover no report regarding the same has been obtained from the CFSL. Crl.A No.887/2005 Page 13 of 23 28. Further it is the case of learned counsel for the appellant that there is not a single eye-witness to support the story of the prosecution even though there were many occasions for the investigating officer to join public witnesses, in order to give credence and corroboration to the prosecution story. And that the witnesses produced by the prosecution are either interested witnesses or police witnesses. 29. The learned counsel further argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt. The counsel submitted that the Trial Court erred in not believing the defence put up by the appellant and not reaching to the conclusion that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case due to ulterior motive. And further that the appellant has already undergone about five years of imprisonment, more over he is suffering from the failure of both the kidneys which requires special medical care and in case proper medical care is not provided to him in time, the life of the appellant would be in danger. 30. Per contra, it is submitted by learned counsel for the State that the prosecution has proved its case beyond any shadow of doubt. 31. We have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as carefully scrutinized the record and given our thoughtful consideration to the matter. Crl.A No.887/2005 Page 14 of 23 32. The arguments of learned counsel for the appellant can be summarized as under: (1) The trial court erred in believing the depositions of prosecution witnesses as well as the depositions of PW-1 and PW-2 (victims) which are self-contradictory; (2) The trial court has relied upon the evidence of the victims which cannot be the basis of conviction; (3) The story of the prosecution cannot be believed in view of the fact that the place where PW-1 and PW-2 were forced to sit in the Tata Sumo was not a lonely place and they did not raise any hue and cry when a Katta was put on their temporal region. (4) The appellant had no role to play in the kidnapping. 33. We do not find force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the trial court has erred in believing the depositions of the prosecution witnesses as well as the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2. 34. The evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 has not been shaken in the cross-examination and we find the same trustworthy. The Trial Court has correctly relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Wassan Crl.A No.887/2005 Page 15 of 23 Singh, reported at AIR 1981 SC 697, wherein it was held that “[w]here the witnesses are examined at the trial 17 months after the incident such discrepancies in regard to collateral and subsidiary facts or matters of details occur even in the statements of truthful witnesses, particularly when they are examined to depose to events which happened long before their examination. Such discrepancies are hardly a ground to reject the evidence of the witnesses when there is general agreement and consistency in regard to the substratum of the prosecution case.” Further in the case of Appabhai Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 696, the Apex Court has observed that “the errors due to the lapse of memory may be given due allowance.” Similar view was also taken in the case of Bharwada Bhyoginbhai Hirjibhai Vs. State of Gujarat, (1993) 3 SCR 280. 35. The Trial Court has rightly analysed that some contradictions are bound to occur on account of the delay in recording of evidence. It may be noticed that the incident had occurred in the year 2000, while the evidence was recorded in the year 2002. We see no infirmity in the finding arrived at by the Trial Court that there were no material contradictions in the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2. 36. No doubt the Court must be slow in passing an order of conviction solely on the basis of the evidence of the victim. Crl.A No.887/2005 Page 16 of 23 The Court must scrutinize the evidence of the victim closely, cautiously and with great circumspection. However, in the facts of this case, there is nothing to show that the evidence of the victims was not trustworthy or that the case of the prosecution was unreliable. The evidence of PW-1 and PW- 2 is corroborated by the evidence of PW-9, Postal Assistant, Main Post Office, Etawah, who supported that the letters of ransom were in fact posted from Etawah. The deposition of PW-9 is reproduced herein below:- “On 14.10.2000 I was posted as Postal Assistant in Head Post Office, Etawah. The enveloped Ex.PW-9/A was received in our office for booking and it was addressed to Bhanu Pratap Singh, Trilokpuri, Delhi. The name of the sender was Anil Kumar. The same was dispatched after making entry in our office in Etawah, R.M.S. for delivering the same to the addressee.” 37. There is nothing in the cross-examination as well as in the evidence to show that the victims had not identified their writing on the ransom letters. And we find that the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 stands corroborated by the evidence of PW-9. Furthermore, in the case of State of Chattisgarh Vs. Derha, reported at 2004 (9) SCC 699, the Apex Court has held that a person may even be convicted solely on the evidence of victim, if the Court is satisfied by his evidence. Moreover, in this case, there is nothing to show that the evidence of the victims is unreliable. Crl.A No.887/2005 Page 17 of 23 38. Learned counsel for the appellant had also strongly urged before this Court that the story of the prosecution cannot be believed in view of the fact that PW-1 and PW-2 were forced to sit in the Tata Sumo from a place which was not a lonely place and inspite of that, they did not raise any hue and cry at that time, especially, when a Katta was put on their temporal region. There can be no strait jacket formula with regard to reactions of an individual. Different persons react differently to different situations. It will be useful to refer to the case of State of U.P. v. Devendra Singh, reported at (2004) 10 SCC 616, relevant portion of which is reproduced below: “6. In view of the rival submissions, it has to be first seen whether the prosecution has established its case. Strictly speaking, the case is not of circumstantial evidence. Human behaviour varies from person to person. Different people behave and react differently in different situations. Human behaviour depends upon the facts and circumstances of each given case. How a person would react and behave in a particular situation can never be predicted. Every person who witnesses a serious crime reacts in his