Case No – 229/11
Delhi District Court
Bench: Hon’ble Rajeev Bansal J.
Date of judgment: 29th November 2014
Relevant Acts/Sections:
- Section 363 of IPC (Punishment for kidnapping)
- Section 302 of IPC (Punishment for murder)
- Section 364A of IPC (Kidnapping or abducting to murder)
- Section 201 of IPC (Causing disappearance of evidence of the offence, or giving false information to screen offender)
- Section 65 B of IPC (Admissibility of electronic records)
- Section 164 of CrPC (Recording of confessions and statements.)
- Section 313 of CrPC (Power to examine the accused.)
Backstory
On 21.05.2011, the complainant Suresh Chaudhary gave a written complaint to SHO, P.S. Mehrauli that his son Abhishekh Chaudhary went missing from his house on 21.05.2011 at about 8:00 a.m and he was wearing a red and black striped shirt, blue Nickker and Hawai Chappal. On this complaint, Rukka was prepared and FIR No. 229/11 was registered on 21.05.2011. On 03.06.2011, the complainant went to P.S Mehrauli and showed a letter to HC Subhash wherein the writer claimed that the boy was with him and he demanded a sum of Rs. 5 lacs for releasing the boy with direction to send the money through Kamlesh to India Gate at 4:00 p.m on 05.06.2011. The complainant Suresh Chaudhary informed the police that he received secret information about his son that he could be found at India Gate on 05.06.2011 at 3:45 p.m. Despite the efforts of police, the child could not be found at India Gate. On 29.06.2011, complainant Suresh Chaudhary handed over two more letters to the police for the demand of ransom. Complainant doubted the accused Shyam Babu Chaudhary. The accused was interrogated and he disclosed that he had killed the kidnapped boy Abhishekh by cutting his throat and threw his dead body in Jamali Kamali Jungle. Accused guided the team to the Jungle behind Jamali-Kamali, Mehrauli, and took the team in a dried big pond, where he had murdered the deceased. On the instance and identification of the accused, the skull of a child was found lying on the dried grass. Nearby the skull, there were small and big human-like bones, which were scattered. There a t-shirt, nicker, baniyaan, and two slippers of the size of a child, were also found nearby. On the instance of the accused, a knife was also found from near the spot, which was told to be used for murdering the child by the accused.
On completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet under Section 302/364A/201 IPC was filed.
The accused disclosed that he was under debt of account of the marriage of his sister and wanted to have money by kidnapping Abhishekh. He further disclosed that Abhishekh was killed by him in the Jungle area Jamali Kamali on the day of the kidnapping.
On 16.11.2011, charges under Section 364A/302/201 IPC were framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 28 witnesses.
PW-16 Dr. Sudipta Ranjan Singh conducted the autopsy on the body of Abhishekh Choudhary on 05.07.2011 at about 2:00 p.m. In the cross-examination, she stated that there could be an error in age approximation towards the higher side to nine-year. She stated that she did not check documentary proof regarding the identity of Rekha and Suresh Chaudhary.
Postmortem Findings
Dr. Sudipta Ranjan Singh conducted an autopsy on the body of Abhishekh Choudhary on 05.07.2011 at about 2:00 p.m. She stated that there was skeletonization and there were animal gnawing marks on the bones. Time since death could not be determined with certainty. There was no soft tissue and no injury was appreciable on the skeleton remains. She stated that even no definite opinion regarding sex could be given with absolute certainty. Anatomically, the bones seemed to be of human origin and they could be of a child as the bones were smaller and lighter. The skull was also smaller and lighter and only the upper jaw was present and mandible was missing. The upper jaw had a total of 12 teeth, out of which 2 showed only crowning. The age of the deceased could be more than 4 years but less than 7 years. Later on, on 07.07.2011, IO requested for collection of the blood samples of the parents of the deceased. She examined Rekha – mother of the deceased vide and Suresh – father of the deceased vide. Blood samples of both these persons were taken and were preserved with the seal of the hospital and given to the IO.
Judgment
The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and in case of murder based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution was under a stringent duty to prove all the links in the chain to prove that it was the accused and only the accused who could have done the murder and none else and in case any link goes missing in the chain, its benefit has to go to the accused. As noticed, there were various missing links in the prosecution story and its benefit went to the accused. The accused was thus entitled to be acquitted and it was so ordered.