State vs Asif Saifi on 16 April, 2025

Delhi District Court

State vs Asif Saifi on 16 April, 2025

         IN THE COURT OF SH. PANKAJ ARORA: ADDL.
          SESSIONS JUDGE-04: NORTH-EAST DISTRICT:
               KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI

SESSIONS CASE No. 214/18
CNR No. DLNE01-002800-2018
FIR No. 126/18
P.S.: Bhajanpura
U/s : 364A of IPC

STATE

                                 Versus

ASIF SAIFI
s/o Sh. Sahabuddin
r/o Mohalla Brahmpuri,
Dadri, Distt. Guatam Budh Nagar, UP


Date of Institution :    07-07-2018
Date of Argument :       03-04-2025
Date of Judgment :       16-04-2025


JUDGMENT

1. Brief facts of this case are that on 12-03-2018, the
complainant Dilshad Ahmad came at PS Bhajanpura and got his
complaint lodged before the Investigating Officer (hereinafter
referred to as IO) ASI Harkesh Kumar. The complainant stated
that he was residing along with his family at B-14/75, Gali no.
11, Subhash Mohalla, Delhi and he was owner of medical store at
Mustafabad. On 12-03-2018 at about 2:15 pm, his minor son ‘A’
(name radacted for the sake of privacy), aged 5 years old, colour
wheatish, height 2.5 feet, having front tooth broken and defect in
his eye, was playing outside his home. The child was wearing

FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 1 of 53
sky blue colour jeans and orange colour sandow baniyan and
orange colour sandles in his feet. At about 2:30 pm, he received
phone call of his wife, who stated that ‘A’ was playing outside
the home but now he was not there. He along with his family
members started searching the child, however, despite efforts, no
clue about his missing child came forward. On the basis of
above-stated statement of complainant, present FIR came to be
registered for the offence punishable u/s 363 of IPC and the
investigation was marked to ASI Harkesh Kumar (hereinafter
referred to as first IO). WT message was flashed on Zipnet and
hue and cry message was sent. Efforts were made to trace the
missing child at his home and CCTV cameras of the area were
scanned. Despite efforts, no clue about missing child came
forward. On 13-03-2018, the complainant came at PS and stated
that he had received a phone call on his mobile phone
9250125135 from another mobile phone no. 9267992893, and
the caller stated that his son was in his safe custody and the
complainant can receive his son from him and for that the
complainant had to hand over Rs. 20 lakhs at NTPC Dhaulana,
Dadri, UP. The caller further stated to him that he would call him
again and some relative of complainant had given him custody of
the child. After some time, the complainant received another
phone call from the same mobile number and this time some
other person spoke to him and informed to him that his name is
Laxman Sharma and residing at Dadri, UP. A few minutes
earlier, one unknown person had borrowed his mobile phone on
the pretext that his phone was running out of balance and he had
to make an urgent call. Upon which, Laxman Sharma handed
over his mobile phone and thereafter that person called the

FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 2 of 53
complainant from the mobile phone of Laxman Sharma. Laxman
Sharma also revealed that the above-stated person was
accompanied with a small child due to which he became
suspicious. Laxman Sharma also asked the complainant to call
the police but the complainant refused as he was scared. The
above-stated developments were informed to SHO concerned,
who further brought the same to the knowledge of ACP
Gokalpuri and thereafter, Section 364A of IPC was added and the
investigation was marked to SI Arun Kumar (hereinafter referred
to as second IO). Immediately, the mobile phones of
complainant and Laxman Sharma were put on surveillance. The
second IO contacted Laxman Sharma on his mobile phone and
proceeded towards village Chapraula, Dadri, UP along with
police staff, where Laxman Sharma s/o Govind Sharma met the
IO. The IO conducted inquiry from Laxman Sharma, who
revealed that on 13-03-2018 at about 9-9:15 am, he was going to
KRBL, Rice Mill for some work. On the way, one unknown
person met him and that person borrowed his mobile phone on
the pretext that his mobile phone was running low in balance and
he had to make an urgent call, whereupon Laxman Sharma
agreed to hand over his phone to that person. Thereafter, that
unknown person had made one phone call. That person was
accompanied with a small child due to which Laxman Sharma
became suspicious and that is why he made another call on the
same number which was dialed by the unknown person and
informed the entire facts to the recipient. He had also asked to
stop the unknown person by calling the police, to which the
complainant refused as he was scared. Laxman Sharma also
informed that recipient of the call was one Dilshad and that

FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 3 of 53
unknown person had kidnapped his child and made a ransom call
of Rs. 20 lakhs. Laxman Sharma further stated that he had made
efforts to trace that unknown person but he had left from there.
The second IO joined Laxman Sharma in the investigation of the
present case and made efforts to trace that unknown
person/kidnapper nearby the place where Laxman Sharma met
him. The CCTV cameras of the nearby shops and dhabas were
checked but no clue came forward. In the evening at about 4-
4:30 pm, the complainant Dilshad received one phone call from
mobile number 9873650529 and the caller inquired from him
about arrangement of money. The second IO immediately
obtained the location of mobile number 9873650529, which was
traced at Dadri bus stand, UP. Without wasting time, the second
IO along with staff and Laxman Sharma proceeded towards
Dadri bus stand where Laxman Sharma had pointed out towards
one person sitting in an auto and identified that person to be the
kidnapper in the present case. Thereafter, the IO with the help of
staff overpowered the accused and from his possession, the
missing child was recovered. That person revealed his name as
Asif Saifi s/o Shahabuddin (accused herein). The accused was
interrogated and during interrogation, he confessed about his
involvement in the present case and narrated in detail about the
circumstances and the manner in which he had induced the
missing child to accompany him, revealed the place where he
took the missing child along with him and narrated all the
incidents that had taken place till he was apprehended. The
accused was arrested and on next day, he was produced in the
concerned court from where his two days PC remand was
obtained. Thereafter, accused had pointed out the place from

FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 4 of 53
where the missing child was kidnapped by him. The accused led
the police party to Dadri bus stand, UP and pointed out the cloth
shop from where he purchased T-shirt for the missing child for
Rs. 60. The owner of the said shop namely Vinod Kumar
Gautam also joined the investigation and identified the accused
and stated that on 12-03-2018 at about 5-5:30 pm, accused came
to his shop along with the child and purchased a T-shirt from his
shop. Thereafter, the accused led the police party to a place
behind Dadri Anaj Mandi. Thereafter, accused pointed out
towards a room situated on the agricultural fields where the
kidnapped child was kept by him overnight. On 16-03-2018, the
accused was produced in the concerned court and his JC remand
was obtained. On 20-03-2018, the IO got recorded statement u/s
164 Cr. P.C. of child in the concerned court. After completion
of necessary formalities, the chargesheet was filed in the court
for the offence punishable u/s 364A of IPC.

COMMITTAL

2. After taking cognizance and compliance of section 207 of
Cr.P.C., the present case was committed to the Courts of
Sessions vide order dated 30-06-2018 by the Ld. MM/NE/KKD.
The same was allocated by the then Ld. District and Sessions
Judge to the Ld. Predecessor of this Court.

CHARGE

3. After hearing the arguments and finding that prima facie
case was made out against the accused for the offence punishable
u/s 364A of IPC, charge was framed by ld. Predecessor against
the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Thereafter, prosecution got examined as many as 13 witnesses.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE

FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 5 of 53

4. (i) PW-1 ASI Ravinder was the Duty Officer posted at PS
Bhajanpura at the relevant time. He has proved the rukka
prepared by the IO as Ex. PW1/A; endorsement made by him on
the rukka as Ex. PW1/B; copy of FIR as Ex. PW1/C; certificate
u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act regarding proper maintenance of
computer system as Ex. PW1/D and DD no. 7A pertaining to the
process of registration of FIR as Ex. PW1/E.
In his cross-examination by Sh. Javed Ali, Ld. Counsel for
accused, he affirmed that investigation was not assigned to ASI
Harkesh in his presence. He also did not know at what time it
was assigned. It is affirmed that certificate u/s 65(B) of LE. Act
does not show any date when it was issued by him. It is affirmed
correct that the detail of computer system has not been
mentioned by him in the said certificate. It is affirmed that
anybody can use the computer system. Again said the operator
uses the computer system. He denied the suggestion that there is
no password in the computer. He denied the suggestion that
contents of FIR have been manipulated. At the time of recording
the contents of FIR, operator, DD writer and himself were
present. At that time, IO SI Harkesh and complainant Dilshad
were also present there. It is affirmed that complainant Dilshad
had not stated a single fact regarding FIR in his presence. He
denied the suggestion that he has not issued any certificate u/s
65(B) of I.E.Act or that he deposed falsely with regard to
manipulation of contents of the FIR. He denied the suggestion
that FIR is ante dated and ante time.

(ii) PW2 Sh. Dilshad Ahmad was the complainant in the
present case. He deposed that he has been residing at aforesaid
address alongwith his family since his childhood. He was

FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 6 of 53
running his medical store in the name and style of Lovely
Medicos situated at street no.19, 25 foota road, New Mustafabad,
Delhi. He has two sons and one daughter and their names are
Azhar aged about 5 years, Kumari Mahira aged about 3½ years
and Master Mohd. Bilal aged about 4 months.

On 12.03.2018 at about 2:00 pm he was coming to his
home for lunch from his shop when he was on the way he
received phone call of his wife that his son Azhar is missing who
was playing in gali in front of their house. He reached at his
home and found his wife busy in search of his missing son Azhar
in the mohalla. He also made search of his aforesaid missing son
with the help of his parents, brothers and neighbours in the area
of Subhash Mohalla, Bhajanpura, Yamuna Vihar, Noor-e- Elahi
etc but no clue come forward about his missing son Azhar.

On the evening of same day, he reached at PS Bhajanpura
and lodged missing report of his son Azhar. He had also told to
police that his son is missing from 2.30 pm. He was wearing sky
blue jeans pant, orange colour sandow baniyan and orange colour
sandle. One police official had recorded his statement at PS
which is Ex.PW2/A. Police registered FIR on his aforesaid
statement and demanded photograph of his son which he had
provided to police.

PW2 added that Police had visited his house and made
interrogation from public persons in respect of his missing son
but no clue come forward. He had shown the place from where
his son was playing and lastly seen by his wife i.e. in a gali in
front of their house. On the night of same day, during search of
his missing son police official had also checked the CCTV
footage which were installed at the house of his neighbour whose

FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 7 of 53
house is at a distance of about 30 fts from his house. Thereafter
police also checked the CCTV footage of one other person who
was residing in gali no.10. It came into their notice from the
aforesaid CCTV footage which was played by owner of house
that his son Azhar was taken by one person from that gali and the
person who was taking away his son had come in that gali
alongwith one other associate. He had told to police that
kidnappers were not known to him when police asked after
seeing the CCTV footage. Police official had copied relevant
portion of CCTV footage in 3-4 mobile phones including his
mobile phone. Thereafter police went to PS and he returned to
his house. Accused present in court is the same person who was
accompanying the kidnapper. Accused Asif had not taken his
son, he was alongwith kidnapper and kidnapper had come in gali
no. 10. PW2 correctly identified accused Asif Ali as associate of
kidnapper. PW2 further stated that accused Asif Ali had not been
seen by him prior to checking the CCTV footage and he had also
not been seen by him thereafter. He volunteered that he had seen
accused Asif in the office of DCP when his son was brought by
the police there and he was called by the IO.

PW2 further testified that at about 5.30 p.m., he reached at
the office of DCP as he had received his phone call at his phone.
In those days, he was using phone having sim connection no.
9250125135. At about 6.00 p.m., 2-3 gypsy of police officials
came in the office of DCP. 3-4 police officials had brought his
son in the office of DCP and remaining police officials were
available in their vehicle. Some police officials had also brought
accused Asif in the office of DCP and he was produced before
DCP.

FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 8 of 53

PW2 correctly identified accused Asif present in court.
PW2 further stated that DCP had made inquiry from him and
accused Asif in his room and asked as to whether he knew the
accused Asif, to which he replied that he had never seen him.
Police officials had told him that his son/victim Azhar Ahmed
was recovered from accused Asif from bus stand, Dadri, U.P. He
had received phone call at about 9/9.15 a.m. on 13.03.2018.
Caller had made call at his phone having sim connection
no.9250125135. Caller had made call with sim connection
no.9267996823 and caller had asked him as to whether he was
Dilshad to which he replied that he was Dilshad speaking. Caller
had also asked him as to whether his son is missing to which he
replied that his son is missing. He asked the name of the caller
from him to which the caller did not disclose his name and told
him that his son was in his custody. Caller had assured him that
his son would be handed over to him after payment of Rs.20 lacs.
Caller further warned him not to disclose this fact to anybody
including police. Caller again told that he is indulged in
kidnapping of children for demanding money and he had given
him time till evening for handing over the payment of Rs. 20 lacs
at a place NTPC, Dholana, U.P. He further directed him to come
alone and also guided him to come on his scooty. Caller had
warned him not to disclose this fact to anyone otherwise he
would finish his son. He also requested the caller that he want to
talk with his son and then he allowed his son to talk with him on
phone. When he asked his son about his whereabouts then his
son told him that he is with his Chachu. On this, he had told him
that he would first discuss the matter at home with his family and
then he would inform to him (caller). He asked from the caller

FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 9 of 53
about his phone on which he can be available. The caller told him
that he is using phone number of some other person and he had
arranged the phone from someone to make aforesaid call. The
caller told him that he would make a call to him at about 4.00
p.m.on the same day. He discussed the matter with his family. He
received phone call of caller at about 4.15 p.m. on 13.03.2018 on
his aforesaid phone and the caller had used sim connection
no.9873650529 and asked from him about the time of reaching at
NTPC. He requested him to grant some more time as he could
not arrange the amount of Rs.20 lacs, but the caller refused to
grant him time and stated that in case he did not provide them the
amount then the child would not come back to him nor the caller
would make call to him. He started weeping on phone and again
requested to grant some time for arranging the amount. Caller
thereafter on his repeated requests granted time till morning.
Thereafter, he had given phone number of caller which had been
used by him to DCP on the same day evening at about 4.20/4.30
pm. DCP Sh. Meena Beeta II had made call on the phone number
given by him to caller again and again. Thereafter, he returned to
his home.

PW2 further deposed that at about 5.00 p.m. when he was
on the way, he received phone call of DCP on his phone and
asked him to visit his office. He did so. It was told to him by
DCP that with the help of mobile number given by him to him,
his child has been recovered and police officials are about to
come alongwith the child. At about 6/6 15 p.m. police officials
had brought his son as well as accused Asif Saifi in the office of
DCP in his presence. His son has been handed over to him vide
handing over memo as Ex.PW 2/B which bears his signatures at

FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 10 of 53
point A. He had forwarded the voice records of the caller to the
phone of IO Arun Kumar on whatsapp as the same had been
directed him to do so. His phone having the said voice records
was in his possession till then. After about 15-20 days, again
said after about 1 month, he had produced victim before
Ld.MM as per advice of the IO and on that day, statement of
victim was recorded by the Ld.MM.

PW2 claimed that he had received three calls of different
caller on his phone from the same number on 13.03.2018. First
call was received at about 9/9.15 a.m., second call was made at
about 9.25 a.m. and at that time caller had disclosed his name as
‘Laxman’ and at the third time, call was received at about 9.30
am. It was told to him by aforesaid Laxman that someone had
demanded his phone to make call as caller had requested
Laxman that he did not have any balance in his phone and he has
to make an urgent call to someone. Laxman had further told him
that he had some suspicion upon the caller about possessing one
child. Laxman also told him that he has a shop nearby the calling
place and also told him that he could apprehend the caller as he
was being accompanied with 4-5 persons. He further told that
one PS is nearby and he could call some police official from the
said PS.
PW2 further revealed that he had joined the investigation
with police officials on the intervening of 15/16.03.2018. Police
took him and accused to PS Dadri where entries were made by
the police. One police official was taken from that PS. Accused
Asif Saifi led them at his house. Family members of accused
were interrogated and information about his arrest was given to
them. It was also told by one police official of PS Dadri before

FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 11 of 53
Delhi Police official that accused had also attempted to kidnap
some child about 20 days/one month ago as that matter was
reported there. Thereafter, accused Asif Saifi led them at a place
where he had kept his son on the intervening night of
12/13.03.2018 and he had shown him the place. Thereafter, they
returned to Delhi and since then, accused was running in J/C.
In his cross examination, he was cross examined by the Ld.
Defence counsel but nothing material came on record.

(iii) PW3 Vinod Kumar Gautam deposed that he has been
residing along with his family in village Badpura, Dadri, Gautam
Budh Nagar, UP since childhood. He is post graduate in
commerce and running his business to sell ready-made clothes on
pavement at Ghanshyam Road near Holika Dahan, Dadri.

On 15.03.2018 at about 3:00 pm, one person was brought
by the police at his aforesaid Thiya. The name of police official
was Arun. He had asked him whether person who was in custody
had come at his shop or not. He had replied him that so many
persons used to come at his thiya to purchase the clothes and
identification of all customer was not possible to him. On his
asking about the person who was with him, he replied that he did
not know him. Thereafter, aforesaid police official further told
him that the person who was in custody had come on his thiya on
12.03.2018. Police official further told him that he had sold T-
shirt to the person who was in custody after receiving Rs.60/-
while he had told the cost of T-shirt a sum of Rs.90/-.

Witness pointed out towards accused standing in dock
saying that he was the person to whom he had sold the T-shirt on
12.03.2018 but at that time he was not having beard. Witness
again said after seen the witness that perhaps accused was the

FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 12 of 53
person whom he sold the T-shirt on 12.03.2018. When he had
sold the aforesaid T-shirt to the accused, one child wearing
baniyan was with the accused.

Witness was shown Master Azhar, after having seen the
boy, witness submitted that he could not say with certainty but it
was a child of 4-5 years in dirty condition.

The witness was cross-examined by ld. Defence counsel.
To a court question as to whether the accused standing in
the dock was the same person who purchased T-shirt on
12/03/2018, he stated that ‘halka halka sa wahi lag raha hai’.

(iv) PW-4 Master ‘A’ s/o Sh. Dilshad Ahmed, aged about
6 years is the kidnapped child in the present case. His statement
was recorded in the Vulnerable Witness Deposition Room No. 77
in presence of support person Ms. Sandhya Singh, Advocate and
the accused was sitting in the room meant for accused. Witness
was in a position to see the accused and hear his voice.

Certain preliminary questions were asked from the witness
to ascertain his competency to depose in the court. On being
satisfied, from the answers of witness, his statement was
recorded without oath.

PW4 deposed that he was playing in his gali. Ayan had
come and took him to his house after giving CHEESE / K-stick
to him. One person took him to a big house on foot where he kept
him on a bed. That house had a big gate. He had also brought
bike and took him there. His father along with one or two persons
reached there and he had brought back him. He had taken food
with that person at another house.

When he was taken, he was wearing baniyan. The person
who had taken him had purchased blue T-shirt for him on the

FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 13 of 53
way. That person had not made any promise or said to him
anything.

After seeing the accused present in court, the witness
submitted that he is Ayan and he had taken him and also
purchased T-shirt for him. PW4 further stated that he had milk in
the morning in that big house. When he was brought from big
house by the police with his father, no other person was with
them. Again said, Ayan was also brought to Delhi with them.
Again said, they were brought to Delhi in Swift car and Ayan
was sitting in the car on rear seat. His statement was recorded by
one Madam after some day from his return at his house.

The witness identified his signature on the statement Ex.
PW4/A at point A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4.

During cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, he
affirmed that his father had told him to identify Ayan/ chacha.
Again said, he had identified the Chacha/ Ayan of his own and
his father had not told him to identify him.

(v) PW-5 Ct. Rohit Kumar was the investigating police
official who had joined the investigation with IO / SI Arun
Kumar on 13-03-2018 after registration of FIR when the
complainant came at PS and reported about ransom call received
by him. He was also a member of raiding team which proceeded
to Dhaulana, Dadri, UP, near NTPC Dadri in search of the
missing child. He deposed on the same lines on which IO SI
Arun Kumar (PW13) has deposed, whose testimony shall be
dealt with later on.

In his cross examination, he was cross examined by the Ld.
Defence counsel but nothing material came on record.

(vi) PW6 Master Laxman Sharma S/o Sh. Govind Sharma

FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 14 of 53
aged about 17 years is the independent witness from whose
mobile phone, the call was made by the accused. His statement
was recorded in the Vulnerable Witness Deposition Room No. 77
in presence of support person Ms. Himani Gupta, Advocate and
the accused was sitting in the room meant for accused. Witness
was in a position to see the accused and hear his voice.

Certain preliminary questions were asked from the witness
to ascertain his competency to depose in the court. On being
satisfied, from the answers of witness, his statement was
recorded on oath.

PW6 deposed that in the year 2018, he was studying in
class Xth in Janta Inter College, Village Roza, Jalalpur, Distt.
Gautambudh Nagar (UP). He did not remember the date but it
was 7th or 8th month of the year 2018. It was about 9-9.15 am, he
had gone for some work to Kanch (glass) Company near KRBL
(Rice Mill), at that time when he reached there Asif (kidnapper),
whose name he came to know later on, met him there with child.
He requested him to make a call from his mobile phone to the
mother of the child. He gave his mobile phone to him. After that,
he made a call from his mobile phone to someone after going
some distance away from him. At that time, the said person was
saying on mobile phone that “Bachcha mere pass hai” and he had
also got the child talked with his mobile phone. Thereafter, Asif
handed over his mobile phone to him. He also told him not to
talk on this number anymore. After that, he left from there with
the child. He suspected something wrong, hence he re-dialed the
same number and at that time Asif was watching towards him.
When he re-dialed the person who picked up the call from other
side, he asked from that person whether he knew the person who

FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 15 of 53
had talked him just before from this number. On this, it was
replied from other side that his son had been missing from last 24
hours and the person who had talked with him was asking for
ransom money. He told the said person that he should inform the
police as there was police chowki in nearby but the said person
denied to do so by saying do not indulge him in this matter. After
that, he made a phone call to one of his known person and told
him about the happening. He told him to stay there and keep
watch on the said person and he was coming. In the meanwhile,
two buses came and the Asif disappeared in between. Just after
some time, his aforesaid known person Pinto Mavi came there
and thereafter, they both tried to search for Asif but he could not
be traced. Thereafter, they returned back at the shop of Pinto
Mavi. After some time, he received a phone call from crime
branch and the official of crime branch asked the location, they
disclosed the same. Thereafter, within 1/ 1½ hours reached to
them. Officer from crime branch made inquiry from him. He told
the entire incident. After that, the police official took him to the
place where he had seen Asif. Thereafter, police officer searched
the CCTV footage of Camera installed at Royal City wherein the
Asif was seen going with the child. After that, they tried to trace
Asif and the child in the nearby area but they could not be found.
Thereafter, they sat in the nearby hotel. After some time, police
officials received the phone call from Dadri. After that, they
reached at Dadri Bus Stand. At that time, they saw the kidnapper
with the child while boarding in van type vehicle / Magic. While
the kidnapper and child were in the process of boarding the
vehicle, the police official first identified the child and get tried
to apprehend the conductor of Magic vehicle. When the

FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 16 of 53
conductor was apprehended by the police, he pointed out towards
the actual kidnapper Asif who was trying to board on the said
magic vehicle. Police official apprehended Asif at his instance.
At the time of apprehension, no documentation were done by the
police official and they left the place. The police official again
came on next day and inquired from him. At the time of arrest,
police official did not obtain his signature on any of the
documents. His statement was recorded on the next day by the
police officials.

After seeing the accused present in the court, the witness
stated that he was unable to identify him as more than one year
has passed and he had seen him only for ten minutes at that time.

He had not stated to the police officials anything else apart
from the aforesaid facts.

The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the
State as he was resiling from his earlier statement made to the
police. During cross-examination by ld. Addl. PP for State, he
did no remember if his statement was recorded by the IO on
13.03.2018. He volunteered that his statement was recorded by
the police on next day.

The statement of witness was shown to the witness and he
admitted that it was his statement Ex. PW6/A. He admitted that
recovery memo of child Azhar Ex. PW6/B bears his signature.
Seizure memo of Motorola mobile phone Ex. PW6/C. He
affirmed that seizure memo of purse Ex.PW6/D bears his
signature at point A. He admitted that arrest memo of accused
Asif Saifi Ex. PW6/E bears his signature at point A and personal
search memo of accused Asif Saifi Ex.PW6/F bears his signature
at point A.

FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 17 of 53
He admitted that he had mentioned his mobile number to
the IO as 9267992893. He admitted that on 13.03.2018 when the
kidnapper had met him, he asked his mobile phone saying that
uske phone me balance khatam ho gaya hai mujhe ek phone
karwa do, urgent hai. He admitted that when he demanded back
his mobile phone from the kidnapper, after giving his mobile,
phone, the kidnapper starting going away hurriedly. He admitted
that after receiving back his mobile phone from the kidnapper
when he had redialed the said number, the person who had
received the call had told his name to his as Dilshad. He
admitted that at that time the said person Dilshad had told him
that the said kidnapper kidnapped his son and demanded ransom
money from him. He admitted that when he had received call of
IO after some time, IO along with his team had arrived there. He
admitted that CCTV cameras installed on the roadside were
checked by the IO. He admitted that in the evening time when he
had seen the kidnapper alongwith the child sitting in an auto at
which he was apprehended by the police team and the child was
rescued from the said kidnapper. He admitted that at that time he
had come to know the name of kidnapper as Asif Saifi S/o
Sahbuddin r/o Mohalla Brahmpuri, Dadri, Distt. Gautambudh
Nagar (UP). He admitted that at that time kidnapper Asif Saifi
was arrested by the police. He denied that he had signed the
arrest paper of accused on the same day. He did not remember
whether his statement was recorded on 13.03.2018. Witness was
confronted with statement Ex.PW6/A where date of recording of
the statement was mentioned as 13.03.2018.

The photograph of child appearing on the photocopy of
hue and cry notice of the child Azhar Ahmed s/o Dilshad Ahmed

FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 18 of 53
Mark X attached to the police file was shown to the witness and
he stated that the child appearing on the photograph was the same
who was recovered from the kidnapper.

At the time of incident when he had seen the kidnapper, he
was not having any beard or mustache and he was clean shaved.
He volunteered that due to lapse of time, he was not in a position
to identify the kidnapper.

He admitted that he could not sell some of the facts earlier
in his examination in chief as he forgot the same but he
recollected the same on being pointed out to him. He denied that
he had singed the arrest papers and other documents i.e. Ex.
PW6/B to Ex. PW6/F on 13.03.2018 at the time of arrest of
accused. He denied that he was deliberately not identifying the
accused as he had been won over by him.

During cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, he
deposed that his mobile phone was never seized by the police. He
affirmed that police had checked the CCTV footages of Royal
City Society but accused Asif was not seen in those footages. He
affirmed that police officials did not seize the DVR of the CCTV
footages in his presence nor statement of person who was
maintaining that DVR was recorded.

(vii) PW7 Ct. Devender deposed that on 13.03.2018 he
was posted at PS Bhajanpura as constable. On that day he joined
the investigation of the present case along with SI Arun.
Complainant Dilshad came to PS and stated that he had received
a call that the caller was having his son and demanded a sum of
Rs.20 lacs and asked him to come at NTPC Dhaulana Dadri with
ransom amount. Dilshad further stated that after some time he
received a call from one Laxman that the caller had made a call

FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 19 of 53
to Dilshad from his phone(Laxman). Laxman disclosed that the
caller was having a child.

SI Arun informed to SHO and ACP regarding the same.
Thereafter, he along with SI Arun, ASI Harkesh, Ct. Amit, Ct.
Rohit and Ct Anwar and complainant visited village Dhaulana.
SI Arun made a call to Laxman who met at his village. SI Arun
inquired from Laxman. He along with other staffs including
complainant and Laxman made a search of accused and
kidnapped child. Meanwhile, complainant received a phone call
of ransom. The mobile phone of the complainant was on
surveillance and location of the mobile phone through which the
ransom call was made found at Bus Stand Dadri, UP. Laxman
saw and identified the kidnapper while he was sitting in an auto.
Accused Asif Saifi was apprehended with the help of their staff
and kidnapped child was recovered from him. Accused was
interrogated and on interrogation he came to know about the
name of accused as Asif Salfi (present in court that day and
correctly identified by the witness). PW7 further stated that
disclosure statement of accused was recorded. He was arrested
and his personal search was conducted. Statement of Laxman
was recorded. Thereafter, PW7 along with other staff including
complainant, recovered child and accused came to the PS. The
recovered child was medically examined. Statement of PW7 was
recorded.

During cross-examination by Addl. PP for State, PW7
affirmed that complainant stated that the caller had told him that
his son was with him (kidnapper) and he is OK, he would get his
son but he had to pay Rs.20 lacs at NTPC Dhaulana, Dadari UP
and he would call again. The caller further told that he had

FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 20 of 53
received the child of complainant from his relative and the caller
also stated that he would call again. Complainant further stated
that after some time he again received a call and this time, some
other person had talked to him and stated that his name is
Laxman Sharma and resided at Dadri, UP. Some time before,
some one asked to give his mobile phone on the pretext that he
had no balance in his phone and had to make an urgent call, on
which Laxman had given his mobile phone and thereafter that
person had talked to him through the mobile phone of Laxman. It
is affirmed that they had visited at village Chhapraula near PNB
GT Road Dadri UP, where Laxman Sharma met them. It is also
affirmed that they made a search at nearby shops and checked
CCTV footage which were installed at Dhaba.

During cross-examination by ld. Defence counsel, he
affirmed that he had not stated the fact mentioned in his chief
examination dated 01-04-2021 SI Arun informed to SHO and
ACP regarding the same’ in his statement recorded u/s 161
Cr.P.C. Laxman met them at bus stand of Dadri. Again said, he
met them at village Chapraula. Laxman met them at around
03:45 PM. He did not know colour and description of Laxman
worn at the time he met them. It is also affirmed that he had not
stated the physical description of Laxman in his statement U/s
161 Cr.P.C.

It is affirmed that neither IO asked Laxman to show his
identity card and address proof nor he himself produced any
identity card and address proof to IO. He denied the suggestion
that Laxman is planted witness and therefore, neither IO asked
Laxman to show his identity card and address proof nor he
himself produced any identity card and address proof to IO.

FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 21 of 53

He did not remember the colour and description of the
clothes worn by the accused at the time of apprehended.

He did not remember the colour and description of clothes,
slipper worn by the kidnapped child and accused. He denied the
suggestion that Laxman saw and identified the kidnapper. At
around 4 pm, the accused was apprehended.

(viii) PW8 Ct. Amit deposed that on 13-03-2018, he was
posted at PS Bhajanpura as Constable. On that day, he joined
investigation in the present case along with IO/ SI Arun.
Complainant Dilshad came at the PS at about 10-11 am and
stated that he has received a phone call on his mobile phone, the
number of which he did not remember, and the caller stated that,
“tumhara bachha mere paas hai, sehkushal hai, aur agar tum
Dadri aa jaogo 20 lakh rupey lekar to mein appko bachha de
dunga, mein dubara se phone karunga”. The complainant further
stated that he called back to the caller after about 10-15 minutes
and then the caller stated that, “mein Laxman bol raha hun aur
mere phone se kisı saksh ne phone kiya tha, uske paas ek bachha
bhi tha, jisne bataya tha ki wah ek urgent call karna chahta hai
kyunki uska phone switched off hai”. Thereafter, PW8 along with
SI Arun, Ct. Amit, Ct. Anwar and complainant went to the spot
ie, village Chapraula, near PNB, G.T. Road, Dadri, UP where
they met one person namely Laxman. Thereafter, IO/SI Arun
conducted inquiry from Laxman, who led them to the place
where the kidnapper had made the above-stated phone call where
they tried to search the CCTV camera but did not find any CCTV
camera installed there. Then, they along with Laxman proceeded
towards Dadri chowk in their car where Laxman pointed out
towards a person who was in the process of getting into a three

FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 22 of 53
wheeler. Then at the instance of Laxman, they apprehended that
person and they noticed that one child was already sitting in the
three wheeler. That person was interrogated, who revealed his
name as Asif Saifi (identity of the accused was not disputed by
the Ld. Defence counsel). The accused was arrested vide arrest
memo already Ex. PW6/E and his personal search was conducted
vide memo already Ex. PW6/F, both bearing his signature at
point B. His disclosure statement was recorded vide memo Ex.
PW8/A bearing his signature at point A. Then, they took the
accused as well as the child to the PS.
During cross-examination by ld. Defence counsel, he
deposed that he remained with the IO during the investigation on
13-03-2018 from 10-11 am to 10-11 pm. He was patrolling in
beat area when the complainant had come in PS. Some munshi
namely Ct. Devender had made a phone call to inform me
between 10 to 11 am that one person Dilshad came in PS. He
cannot tell his mobile number. He denied the suggestion that no
phone call was ever made by Ct. Devender to him or that he
deposed falsely and therefore, he cannot tell his mobile number.

He did not make any departure entry. He volunteered that
IO might have made departure entry. He cannot tell the time
when the departure entry was made. He had put his signature on
his statement and had also appended the date below his signature.

He could not tell the room number situated in PS, in which
complainant had narrated the facts regarding alleged phone call
and its contents. The complainant remained with the IO in the
said room for around 2 to 2½ hours. He did not remember
whether the DCP was present in PS or not. It is also affirmed that
he cannot tell what was the talk between complainant and IO in

FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 23 of 53
the said room for around 2 to 2½ hours.

He could not tell the make, model, colour and company of
his mobile phone which was used by him on 13-03-2018. Vol.-
he used only one mobile number. It is affirmed that he had not
made any phone call to anyone in respect of present case on 13-
03-2018. He also could not tell as to whom the IO had made
phone call or received call from anyone. He denied the
suggestion that he had never accompanied with the IO therefore,
he cannot tell as to whom he IO had made phone call or received
call from anyone.

He could not tell the colour and description of the clothes
and the Slipper the child was wearing on 13-03-2018. He also
cannot tell the colour and description of the clothes and the
slipper worn by Asif Saifi on 13-03-2018. On 13-03-2018,
accused Asif Saif was having beard and mustache. It is affirmed
that IO did not make any inquiry at Dadri and Chapraula and
G.T. Road in his presence from anyone. He volunteered that he
stated that IO had asked from the people of dhabas if they have
seen any child. He denied the suggestion that IO did not record
statement of anyone in his presence.

It is affirmed that Laxman had not shown his identity or
address card to IO in his presence. He cannot tell the number
and description of the auto as deposed by him in his examination-
in-chief. IO did not record statement of auto driver.

He did not know the name of person who reported their
arrival at nearby PS in Dadri but he was Duty Constable/ officer
in rank.

Laxman was left in main Dadri at around 4:30-5 pm but he
did not know the exact place. They did not prepare any document

FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 24 of 53
when Laxman left our company.

(ix) PW9 HC Manish deposed that on 12-03-2018, he was
on emergency duty along with ASI Harkesh at PS Bhajanpura.
In the evening, the complainant came to PS and told them that his
child was missing since morning time around 10-11 am. The IO/
ASI Harkesh recorded his statement and FIR was got registered.
Thereafter, ASI Harkesh got issued WT message etc. regarding
missing child. Thereafter, he along with ASI Harkesh and
complainant went to the spot of occurrence and made search of
child in the nearby area, however, the child was not found.
Thereafter, ASI Harkesh recorded supplementary statement of
complainant at his house. Thereafter, he along with IO/ ASI
Harkesh returned to PS.
He further deposed that on 13-03-2018, he joined the IO /
SI Arun. He was also a member of raiding team which
proceeded to Dhaulana, Dadri, UP, near NTPC Dadri in search of
the missing child and conducted raid for recovery of missing
child. He deposed on the same lines on which IO SI Arun Kumar
(PW13) has deposed, whose testimony shall be dealt with later
on.

In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel he stated
that they had left for Dadri on 13.03.2018 at 12 to 12:30 pm. He
did not have any knowledge if departure or arrival entry was
made at any point of time.

To a question as to could he tell the place where Laxman
met him, he replied village Chhapraula mein ek chota aour
purana sa makan that wo wahin par mila tha.

He did not remember the street and mohalla where the said
chota aur puran makan was situated.

FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 25 of 53

He could not tell the colour and description of clothes of
accused worn on that day. He also cannot tell the colour and
description of clothes and slippers worn by child. He cannot tell
the address the accused allegedly shown them. Vol. Said it was
behind Dadri Mandi.

(x) PW10 HC Anwar was the investigating police official
who had joined the investigation with IO / SI Arun Kumar on 13-
03-2018 after registration of FIR when the complainant came at
PS and reported about ransom call received by him. He was also
a member of raiding team which proceeded to Dhaulana, Dadri,
UP, near NTPC Dadri in search of the missing child. He deposed
on the same lines on which IO SI Arun Kumar (PW13) has
deposed, whose testimony shall be dealt with later on.

In his cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, he stated
that it was only one car. He cannot tell the registration number
and model of said car. Vol. it was a white colour car. They had
left at around 10/11 am on 13-03-2018 for Chapraula, Dadri, UP
and reached there at around 1:30 to 1:45 pm. He did not
remember as to who drove the said car. He did not make any
departure entry in this regard. Vol. IO must be knowing about
this.

He could not tell the colour and description of clothes
worn by Laxman on 13-03-2018. He did not remember as to for
how much time they stayed in the said street. He volunteered that
they stayed for some time.

(xi) PW11 Retd. SI Harkesh Kumar deposed that on 12-03-
2018, he was posted as ASI at PS Bhajanpura. On that day, he
was performing emergency duty from 8 am to 8 pm. At about 6
pm, one person namely Dilshad s/o Jamil Ahmad r/o Subhash

FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 26 of 53
Mohalla, Jafrabad, Delhi came to PS and reported that his son
Azhar, aged 5 years, height about 2½ foot, with one front broken
tooh, having different vision in eyes, wearing sky blue colour
pant, yellow colour sando baniyan and slippers was playing in
the gali and was last seen at about 2:30 pm by his wife and
thereafter, he was not seen and missing since then. They tried to
search their child but could not locate him. He wrote a compliant
and on the basis of that complaint, he prepared tehrir and handed
over the same to Duty Officer for registration of FIR for the
offence punishable u/s 363 of IPC. The Duty officer accordingly
registered the FIR. Thereafter, he along with HC Manish went to
the house of complainant, collected photographs of the missing
child Azhar and carried out interrogation. They made efforts to
search the missing child but no clue came forward. Thereafter,
they came back to PS along with complainant. He filled Missing
Form, flashed WT Message, uploaded the details of missing
child on Zipnet, Hue and Cry Notice was issued. Finally
reported about the state of affairs to the then SHO.

After about one hour, he again visited the house of
complainant along with the complainant. They tried to search the
missing child but no clue came forward throughout the night. As
the child was under the age of 5, the SHO informed his senior
officers and discussed the same and they continued the search
throughout the night however, the child was not traced. Next
morning at about 10:15 am, the complainant came to the PS and
gave them a phone number and told that he had received a call
from this number and the caller was demanding Rs. 20 lakhs in
lieu of releasing the child. The caller further asked the
complainant that he should bring the money at NTPC, Dadri, UP.

FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 27 of 53

He discussed the same with the concerned SHO who further
discussed with his senior officers. Accordingly, he was asked to
add Section 364A of IPC and was asked to hand over the file to
SI Arun for further investigation. Accordingly, he handed over
the same to SI Arun.

Thereafter, at around 11/ 11:30 am, IO SI Arun prepared a
raiding team consisting of PW11, Ct. Devender, Ct. Anwar, HC
Manish, Ct. Rohit and himself apart from 2-3 more members
whose names he did not remember. A CDR analyzing police
team was working simultaneously in this case. Thereafter, they
prepared for departing to Chaprula as the complainant told them
that on his making the call back again on the same number, a
person by the name Laxman picked up the call who told them
that an unknown passersby had requested him to make a call and
he further told his location at Chapraula. Accordingly, they
reached Chapraula where they met with Laxman. IO made
inquiries from Laxman. Thereafter, CCTV footage was checked
in the nearby area, however, no footage was found. Thereafter,
on the directions of IO, they went to Dadri bus stand where
Laxman identified a person who had borrowed his phone to make
a call and who was trying to sit in an autorickshaw and there was
a child accompanying him also. They apprehended the said
person and IO made inquiries from the said person whose name
was revealed as Asif Saifi. The IO arrested the accused vide
arrest memo Ex. PW6/E. The accused was personally searched
vide memo Ex. PW6/F. The child was taken into custody. The
accused was interrogated and thereafter, they returned back to
PS. The child was handed over to the complainant i.e. father of
child.

FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 28 of 53

In his cross-examination by Ld. defence counsel, he
affirmed that he did not record statement of complainant’s wife
who had allegedly last seen the child at about 2:30 pm. It is
correct that he did not ask the places where the complainant had
searched his missing child. It is also correct that he also did not
ask the name and address of those people from whom he had
contacted to trace or to find out his missing child. On 12.03.2018
at around 8 pm, he along with HC Manish went to the house of
complainant where he met family members i.e his wife, his
brothers, his uncle and neighbours in his home.

It is affirmed that they did not make any departure or
arrival entry.

They had departed to Chapraula in two cars, both were
private cars. He did not know the colour, model, make,
registration number and their respective description. Both cars
were having sitting capacity of five persons respectively. Both
cars were driven by private drivers. The car in which he was
sitting, HC Manish and two constables were also sitting in the
same car but he did not remember their names. He did not know
by whom the said cars were hired from which agency.

It is also affirmed that IO SI Arun did not check the call
history of Laxman’s mobile in his presence. The IO SI Arun had
checked the CCTV camera on the shops which were situated on
road side, adjacent to KBRL Mill but he did not remember their
name and exact address. He did not know on which side the
alleged autorickshaw was parked near Dadri Bus Stand. He did
not know the registration number and colour of autorickshaw.
Again said, the said authorickshaw was of black and yellow
colour. He did not know the colour and description of the clothes

FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 29 of 53
worn by the driver of alleged autorickshaw. No videography and
photography was made by them.

He could not tell which site map was prepared by the IO
even after seeing the court file. IO did not ask anyone from the
bus stand or the passersby to join the investigation at the time of
apprehending the accused. The arrest memo Ex. PW6/A does not
bear his signature. It is affirmed that he had not signed any
document till the time he remained with the IO SI Arun. After
spending 45 minutes at Dadri bus stand, they all left for Delhi at
around 7:15 pm. IO did not call any local police officials. It is
affirmed that they did not go anywhere from Dadri bus stand
except to Delhi. They had reached PS Bhajanpura at around 8 or
8:15 pm.

(xii) PW12 HC Ajay Kumar was the investigating police
official who had accompanied the IO SI Arun Kumar, Ct. Amit
and accused Asif Saifi during investigation conducted in the shop
of one Vinod Kumar Gautam at Dadri bus stand, UP during PC
remand of accused on 15-03-2018. He deposed on the same lines
on which SI Arun Kumar has deposed regarding the proceedings
conducted on the aforesaid place on 15-03-2018.

In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel he stated
that SI Arun had asked him and Ct. Amit at around 2/02:30 pm to
join the investigation in the present case orally in person. The
departed from the PS at around 02:45 /3 pm in a car however,
perhaps it was Innova car but he did not remember the colour and
registration number of the said car.

He did not remember the colour of clothes worn by the
shopkeeper on that day. He did not know whether IO had
informed local police prior to or subsequent to reaching Dadri. It

FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 30 of 53
is affirmed that accused was in muffled face. They remained
present in the bus stand for about 3 to 3½ hours.

He denied the suggestion that he has cooked up false story
in respect of making inquiry from rehriwalas and patriwalas and
therefore, he cannot tell their names.

It is affirmed that no videography or photography of the
place where the said patriwala was having his shop at bus stand
was conducted. IO did not ask anyone the address of Vinod
rehriwala while going to Dadri from Delhi. Vol. Vinod rehriwala
himself revealed his address. It is affirmed that IO did not hand
over any notice to Vinod Kumar Gautam to join the investigation
in the present case. He denied the suggestion that shop-keeper
did not identify the accused or that he has deposed falsely in
respect of the same.

He cannot tell the distance of 12 bigha khet from Dadri bus
stand. It took about half an hour in reaching to 12 bigha khet
from Dadri bus stand. It is affirmed that no videography or
photography of the said 12 bigha khet was conducted. It is also
affirmed that no statement of the local people nearby 12 bigha
khet was recorded by the IO. The said 12 bigha khet was not
cultivated at that time. He did not know whether statement of
Sewa Ram was recorded by the IO. The said small room was of
the size of about 10 x 15 feet. The site plan of the said room was
prepared by the IO. He did not know the contents of said site
plan.

It is affirmed that he has not stated the factum of
preparation of site plan of 12 bigha khet and small room in his
statement u/s 161. His statement was recorded at 12 bigha khet.
Again said, his statement was recorded at PS.

FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 31 of 53
It is affirmed that he has not stated the factum of searching
the owner namely Ram Pratap Rawal in a village in his
statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C.

He denied the suggestion that neither they had visited any
such place nor accused took them at any point of time to any 12
bigha khet. It is affirmed that neither the signature of Sewa Ram
nor any independent person’s signatures were obtained on
pointing out memo Ex. PW12/A. IO had stated in the said
pointing out memo Ex. PW12/A that the said 12 bigha khet
belongs to Ram Pratap Rawal.

(xiii) PW13 SI Arun Kumar, D-5354, Anti-Narcotics
Squad, District South-East, N. Delhi is the second IO of the
present case. He deposed that on 13-03-2018, he was posted at
PS Bhajanpura. On that day, the investigation of the present case
was marked to him by the then SHO. At about 9:30-10 am, the
complainant Dilshad came at PS and informed that he has
received calls from unknown number i.e. 9267992893 on his
mobile phone i.e. 9250125135 and the caller stated in his first
call that, “tumhara bachha mere paas hai, Rs. 20 lakh lekar NTPC
Dhaulana Dadri aa jao”. After about 5 minutes, the caller made
second call and stated that he is Laxman Sharma from Dadri and
when he was present near KRBL Rice Mill, Dadri at about 9 –
9:15 am, one unknown person had made call from his mobile
phone i.e. 9267992893 and that unknown person was
accompanied by one child. That unknown person had borrowed
his mobile phone on the pretext that account balance in his
mobile phone was low and he had to make urgent call.
Thereafter, complainant responded to the caller by stating that,
“us anjan saksh ne mere bete ko kidnap kar rakha hai aur 20 lakh

FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 32 of 53
rupey ke mang ki hai”. Laxman Sharma (caller) stated to the
complainant that he would call police but the complainant
refused for the same. Thereafter, he personally called on the
above-stated unknown mobile no. 9267992893 and spoke with
Laxman Sharma, who had confirmed the facts revealed by the
complainant. He intimated about the above-stated development
to the then SHO thereafter on the directions of the then SHO,
section 364A of IPC was added in the present FIR. A raiding
team comprising himself, ASI Harkesh, HC Manish, HC Rajeev,
Ct. Devender, Ct. Amit and one more member, whose name he
did not now remember, was constituted. Thereafter, he along
with the team proceeded towards Chapraula, G. T. Road, Dadri,
UP in civil dress. They reached there at about 12-12:30 pm and
met Laxman Sharma at his residence situated at Village
Chapraula, G. T. Road, Dadri, near PNB Bank. He joined
Laxman Sharma in the investigation and took him to KRBL, Rice
Mill i.e. the place from where the ransom call was made to the
complainant. He checked the CCTV footage in the nearby area
but no clue regarding the incident narrated by Laxman Sharma
came forward. They tried to search the missing child as well as
the culprit in the nearby area but no clue came forward.

PW13 claimed that at about 4:30 pm, he received a call
from the then SHO who informed him that the complainant
Dilshad has received another unknown call from mobile no.
9873650529 and the caller inquired from the complainant as to
whether he had arrangement of Rs. 20 lakhs as demanded by him
or not. In reply thereto, the complainant had sought one day more
time. Immediately, the then SHO had procured the location of
mobile no. 9873650529 from the network service provider and

FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 33 of 53
forwarded the same to him. The location provided by network
service provider was of Dadri Bus Stand. He along with raiding
team and Laxman Sharma immediately proceeded towards Dadri
Bus Stand. Upon reaching Bus Stand at about 5 pm, they tried
searching the culprit and the missing child. Within 5-7 minutes,
Laxman Sharma had pointed out towards one person who was
seated in one autorickshaw along with one child and stated that
he was the person who had borrowed his mobile phone on 13-03-
2018 at near KRBL Rice Mill, Dadri. He with the help of raiding
team overpowered that person and rescued the missing child.
That person was interrogated, who revealed his name as Asif
Saifi (correctly identified by PW13). PW13 added that accused
Asif Saifi had confessed that he had kidnapped the missing child
from Subhash Mohalla, Bhajanpura, Delhi. He arrested the
accused at Dadri Bus Stand and conducted his personal search
vide memos already Ex. PW6/E and Ex. PW6/F. He prepared
the recovery memo of the missing child which is already Ex.
PW6/B bearing his signature at point B. He recorded statement
u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of Laxman Sharma vide Ex. PW6/A. Laxman
Sharma was relieved and they along with the missing child and
accused proceeded towards PS at Delhi. He got the medical
examination of missing child conducted at JPC hospital and
thereafter, he handed over custody of missing child to the
complainant Dilshad, who was already present at the PS vide
handing over memo already Ex. PW2/B. He interrogated the
accused and recorded his disclosure statement which is already
Ex. PW8/A. In his disclosure statement, accused stated that he
had befriended the missing child about 2-3 days prior to the date
of kidnapping and already conducted recce of the house of

FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 34 of 53
missing child. While conversing with the missing child, the
accused got to know about the financial status and family details
of the missing child. On 09-03-2018, the accused had obtained
the mobile number of complainant from his wife at his residence
on the pretext that one Hajiji had asked mobile number of
complainant. He also disclosed that on the date of kidnapping, he
had lured one child in the locality by handing over Rs. 100
currency note to him and asked that child to call the missing
child and that child accordingly, brought the missing child,
thereby enabling the accused to kidnap the missing child.

On next day i.e. 14-03-2018, PW13 produced the accused
before the court and obtained his two days PC remand. During
PC remand, he tried to search the child who facilitated the
accused in bringing the missing child before the accused but no
clue came forward. On 15-03-2018, he along with Ct. Amit and
HC Ajay took the accused to Dadri Police Station where he got
recorded his arrival DD entry. Thereafter, they went to Dadri Bus
Stand where accused had pointed out the rehri from where he had
purchased T-shirt for the missing child. He visited that rehri and
met the owner namely Vinod Kumar Gautam and recorded his
statement, who had also confirmed the fact that the missing child
along with accused had visited his rehri. The statement of Vinod
Kumar Gautam is Ex. PW13/A. Thereafter, accused led them to
a room situated in a field measuring 12 bigha, behind Dadri Anaj
Mandi where he had confined the missing child on the nights of
12/13-03-2018. Pointing out memo of the said place was
prepared which is already Ex. PW12/A. In the evening, he came
back at PS. Next morning, he produced the accused before
concerned court and he was sent to JC.

FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 35 of 53

PW13 further claimed that on 20-03-2018, he moved an
application for recording statement u/s 164 of Cr.P.C. of the
missing child before Ld. MM vide Ex. PW13/B bearing his
signature at point A, which was marked to the concerned Link
MM. The statement was recorded by concerned Ld. Link MM on
the same day. After completing the investigation, he prepared the
chargesheet and filed the same before the concerned court.

In his cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel he
affirmed that he did not take the voice sample of either
complainant, accused or Laxman and any other person connected
with the present case.

It is affirmed that he never seized the mobile phone of
complainant. It is also affirmed that neither the complainant
himself gave him screen shot of any phone calls he received nor
he had asked him to furnish the same in respect of the present
case. It is also affirmed that he did not get the CDR of mobile
phone of complainant, accused and Laxman. It is affirmed that
case of the prosecution is entirely based upon the alleged phone
calls. It is affirmed that the complainant had never handed over
any bill or invoice of mobile phone which he was allegedly
using. It is affirmed that he did not prepare any site plan at any
point of time.

He did not remember the colour and description of the
clothes worn by Laxman Sharma on 13.03.2018. Neither he had
shown his ID card nor he himself had seized the same for
Laxman’s identification at that time. He volunteered that later on
he has taken his copy of Aadhar Card. He had not mentioned this
fact in the chargesheet.

He had not mentioned this fact in the chargesheet. On

FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 36 of 53
15.03.2018, they had departed to Dadri, Gautam Budh Nagar,
U.P by car. It was SUV white colour car but he cannot tell its
registration number. The said car was having capacity of 5
persons. The said car was hired on rent by HC Ajay. It is
affirmed that he had not mentioned in the chargesheet that the car
which was departed to Dadri, Gautam Budh Nagar, UP was hired
on rent by HC Ajay. They had left Dadri, Gautam Budh Nagar,
UP approx. 09:30 AM or 10:00 AM.

It is affirmed that no photography and videography of the
said field of 12 bigha and the room situate therein was ever
conducted. 12 bigha khet me kuch me fasal thi aur kuch me fasal
nahi thi. It is affirmed that accused Asif confrontation was not
done with the local people of the place where the said /alleged 12
bigha field was situated.

It is affirmed that the statement of Sewa Ram mentioned in
the chargesheet who had allegedly introduced himself the brother
of owner of 12 bigha field was not recorded. It is affirmed that he
did not obtain the Identity and address proof of the said person
namely Sewa Ram.

He denied the suggestion that no person namely Sewa Ram
exists or that he has falsely cooked up a false story in the
chargesheet and therefore, neither he had recorded his statement
nor obtained or asked him to furnish his identity or address proof.
It is affirmed that he did not issue or hand over notice U/s 160 of
Cr.P.C to the person namely Sewa Ram to join the investigation.
It is affirmed that child Azhar has not stated in his statement U/s
164 Cr.P.C in respect of any 12 bigha field or room situated
therein.

FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 37 of 53

STATEMENT OF ACCUSED

5. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statement of
accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein
incriminating facts were put to the accused, which was denied by
him. He stated that he is innocent and falsely implicated in this
case. He is M.Tech and was teaching as Asstt. Professor in
Galgotia University, Noida, UP. He had never been indulged in
any such crime. He was given beatings by the police after his
arrest and was forced to accept the crime. He told the police that
he was not present in Delhi on 13-03-2018 and he had never
visited the house of child and had never asked the mobile number
of Dilshad. Police falsely implicated him in this blind case. He
did not opt to lead defence evidence.

FINAL ARGUMENTS

6. It is submitted by Ld. Addl. PP for state that there is no
major contradiction and discrepancy in the testimony of
witnesses got examined by the prosecution. Testimony of PW2
Dilshad is consistent with his statement Ex.PW2/A which forms
the basis of registration of FIR. His testimony is also consistent
with facts revealed by him subsequently regarding the ransom
call during investigation of the present case. PW-2 has correctly
identified the accused. PW-2 Dilshad was a layman and does not
possess knowledge of legal definition of Kidnapping. Merely
because PW-2 had identified accused as a person who had
accompanied the Kidnapper, this will not give rise to an
inference that accused was not the Kidnapper in the present case.
It is further submitted that except on the point of identity, the
testimony of PW-3 Vinod Kumar, who is an independent
witness, is also consistent with his statement recorded during

FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 38 of 53
investigation of the present case. Similarly, PW6 Laxman has
also supported the case of the prosecution and has correctly
revealed the name of the accused. Merely, because he has failed
to identify the accused due to lapse of time, his entire testimony
cannot be discarded. It is well settled that there are certain lapses
in the investigation in the present case. At the same time, it is
well settled that merely because of lapses in the investigation, the
testimony of star witnesses of the prosecution cannot be
discarded.

7. Per contra, it is submitted by Sh. Javed Ali, Ld. Defence
counsel that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubts as there are many material contradictions and
discrepancies in the version of the prosecution witnesses. The
complainant of the present case i.e. PW-2 Dilshad had only
identified the accused as an associate of kidnapper. He never
claimed that the accused has played any role in enticing the
kidnapped son of complainant. No site plan indicating the place
of kidnapping /place where the Kidnapped child was kept, and
place from where alleged ransom call was made, and place from
where the kidnapped child was recovered, has been prepared by
the IO.

PW3 Vinod Kumar, who is an independent witness, from
whom a T-shirt for the Kidnapped child was purchased by the
accused as per the case of the prosecution, was in dilemma on the
aspect of identity of the accused as reflected from his deposition.
Moreover, the factum of purchase of T-shirt was not revealed by
the Kidnapped child in his statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C nor the said
T-shirt was ever recovered during the investigation. Thus, a story
of Kidnapping and ransom call has been cooked up by the

FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 39 of 53
prosecution. Further, there are material lapses in the investigation
of the present case which would point towards the innocence of
the accused. As per the prosecution case, the alleged ransom call
was made telephonically by the accused from the mobile phone
of Laxman to the mobile phone of complainant Dilshad.
However, no CDR and CAF of the mobile phone of Laxman or
that of the complainant has been collected by the IO. The voice
note of the alleged Kidnapper, which was in possession of the
complainant, has not been seized by the IO. Further, there are
several discrepancies in the testimony of members of the raiding
team i.e PW5 Rohit Kumar, PW7 HC Manish, PW-10 HC
Anwar, PW11 Retd. SI Harkesh Kumar and PW13 SI Arun as
none of them was able to reveal colour and description of clothes
worn by Laxman, the person from whose mobile phone the
alleged ransom call was made. Nor they were able to reveal the
make and model of the mobile phone of Laxman. There are
material contradictions in the testimony of above-stated raiding
team regarding the location where the Kidnapped child was kept;
the mode/means of transport by which the members of the
raiding team proceeded for raiding on 15.03.2018; their timings
for departing from or arrival at PS; clothes worn by the
Kidnapped child at the time of recovery; the manner in which
reporting was made at PS Dadri; the description of mobile phone
of Laxman and age of PW-6 Laxman. Necessary DD entries
regarding receipt of crucial information provided by the
complainant i.e. time when complainant came at PS for reporting
about the ransom call received by him, and the arrival and
departure of police official for proceeding various places in
connection with investigation of the present cases have not been

FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 40 of 53
placed on record.

It is submitted that all these lapses in the investigation have
been made to suppress the truth coming before the court. It is
submitted that all the independent witnesses i.e PW-6 Laxman
and PW-3 Vinod are planted witnesses in the present case. The
prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt
and therefore the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

Ld. counsel for the accused has placed reliance upon
following authorities in support of his submissions:

1. Jagdish And Ors Vs State Of Mp. Cr.A.Nos 223,239 And 281
Of 2010. Hon’ble High Court Of Madhya Pradesh.

2. State Vs Vijay, Crl. Lp No 323/2010. Hon’ble High Court Of
Delhi.

3. Karuna Deka Vs State Of Assam And Ors, Crl.A. 261/2014.
Hon’ble High Court Of Gauhati

4. Vinod Vs State Of Mp, C.A No 1065 Of 2001, Hon’ble High
Court Of Madhya Pradesh.

5. Narra Peddi Raju Vs State Of Telangana, C.A. No 1553 Of
2019. Supreme Court Of India.

6. Rai Sandeep Vs. State (NCT Of Delhi), C.A. No-2486 Of
2009, Supreme Court Of India.

7. Lal Chand Cheddilal Yadav Vs State Of Mahatrashtra, C.A.
No-168/1996, Hon’ble High Court Of Bombay

8. State Vs Sunil Kumar And Ors, Crl Μ.Α. Νο 76/2023, Hon’ble
High Court Of Delhi.

FINDINGS OF THE COURT

8. Before analyzing the evidence led by the Prosecution in
the present case, this court deems it proper to refer to some

FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 41 of 53
provisions of law, which are found to be applicable to the facts of
the present case.

361. Kidnapping from lawful guardianship.–
Whoever takes or entices any minor under sixteen years of
age if a male, or under eighteen years of age if a female, or
any person of unsound mind, out of the keeping of the lawful
guardian of such minor or person of unsound mind, without
the consent of such guardian, is said to kidnap such minor or
person from lawful guardianship. Explanation.–The words
“lawful guardian” in this section include any person lawfully
entrusted with the care or custody of such minor or other
person.

Exception.–This section does not extend to the act of any
person who in good faith believes himself to be the father of
an illegitimate child, or who in good faith believes himself to
be entitled to the lawful custody of such child, unless such
act is committed for an immoral or unlawful purpose.

Sections 364A of IPC read as under:-

364A. Kidnapping for ransom, etc.–Whoever kidnaps or
abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such
kidnapping or abduction, and threatens to cause death or hurt to
such person, or by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable
apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt, or
causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the
Government or [any foreign State or international inter-
governmental organization or any other person] to do or abstain
from doing any act or to pay a ransom, shall be punishable with
death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.

9. Perusal of the record would show that this case is based
upon the testimony of eyewitness i.e. the kidnapped child PW4
Master ‘A’, aged about 6 years. He has correctly identified the
accused as the person who had taken him along with him and had
also purchased a T-shirt for him even though he revealed the
name of the accused as ‘Ayan’. His testimony was recorded after
taking due precautions and determining his competency to
depose before the court. In his testimony dated 29-03-2019,
PW4 categorically deposed that he was playing in his gali. Ayan

FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 42 of 53
had come and took him to his house after giving CHEESE / K-

stick to him. One person took him to a big house on foot where
he kept him on a bed. That house had a big gate. He had also
brought bike and took him there. His father along with one or
two persons reached there and he had brought back him. He had
taken food with that person at another house. When he was
taken, he was wearing baniyan. The person who had taken him
had purchased blue T-shirt for him on the way. That person had
not made any promise or said to him anything.

10. Despite a lengthy cross-examination, PW4 stood by his
stand of being enticed by the kidnapper to accompany with him
to an unknown place (a big house as revealed by PW4). No
suggestion was put to PW4 to the effect that he was not
kidnapped/ enticed by anyone to go to some place with him. His
father i.e. PW2 Dilshad Ahmad had also claimed that he had
identified the accused in the company of another kidnapper in the
CCTV footage of some person residing in gali no. 10 of his
locality. Thus, it is manifest from the testimony of PW4 that it
was accused who had enticed the kidnapped minor child (PW4)
out of the keeping of his lawful guardian (the parents in the
present case) and without the consent of such guardian.

11. In order to prove the ransom call, the prosecution has got
examined PW2 Dilshad Ahmad (the complainant). PW2 Dilshad
Ahmad has narrated complete details of the mobile phone
numbers i.e. 9267996823 and 9873650529 on which he had
received the ransom call of Rs. 20 lakhs. He had also claimed
that he had forwarded the voice record of the caller to the mobile
phone of IO Arun Kumar on Whatsapp and the said voice record
were in his possession till the date of his deposition. However,

FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 43 of 53
the said voice record had not been made part of the record for
reasons best known to the investigating agency. On this aspect,
PW2 Dilshad Ahmad has categorically deposed that he had
received phone call at about 9/9.15 a.m. on 13.03.2018. Caller
had made call at his phone having sim connection
no.9250125135. Caller had made call with sim connection
no.9267996823 and caller had asked him as to whether he was
Dilshad to which he replied that he was Dilshad speaking. Caller
had also asked him as to whether his son is missing to which he
replied that his son is missing. He asked the name of the caller
from him to which the caller did not disclose his name and told
him that his son was in his custody. Caller had assured him that
his son would be handed over to him after payment of Rs.20 lacs.
Caller further warned him not to disclose this fact to anybody
including police. Caller again told that he is indulged in
kidnapping of children for demanding money and he had given
him time till evening for handing over the payment of Rs. 20 lacs
at a place NTPC, Dholana, U.P. He further directed him to come
alone and also guided him to come on his scooty. Caller had
warned him not to disclose this fact to anyone otherwise he
would finish his son. He also requested the caller that he want to
talk with his son and then he allowed his son to talk with him on
phone. When he asked his son about his whereabouts then his
son told him that he is with his Chachu. On this, he had told him
that he would first discuss the matter at home with his family and
then he would inform to him (caller). He asked from the caller
about his phone on which he can be available. The caller told him
that he is using phone number of some other person and he had
arranged the phone from someone to make aforesaid call. The

FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 44 of 53
caller told him that he would make a call to him at about 4.00
p.m. on the same day. He discussed the matter with his family.
He received phone call of caller at about 4.15 p.m. on 13.03.2018
on his aforesaid phone and the caller had used sim connection
no.9873650529 and asked from him about the time of reaching at
NTPC. He requested him to grant some more time as he could
not arrange the amount of Rs. 20 lakhs, but the caller refused to
grant him time and stated that in case he did not provide them the
amount then the child would not come back to him nor the caller
would make call to him. He started weeping on phone and again
requested to grant some time for arranging the amount. Caller
thereafter, on his repeated requests, granted time till morning.

12. His testimony is consistent with the case set up by the
prosecution. Even though, it appears that there are certain
improvements in his version regarding the availability of CCTV
footage wherein he had seen the accused in the company of his
kidnapped child and one more person and about the availability
of voice records in his mobile phone regarding the conversations
about the ransom call which took place between his mobile
phone and the mobile phone of the kidnapper yet, his testimony
cannot be discarded in entirety. All these improvements only
indicates lapses in the investigation conducted by the
investigating agency. Merely on the basis of said lapses, the
entire testimony of PW2 Dilshad Ahmad cannot be discarded
particularly in view of the fact that there is nothing on record to
indicate that PW2 Dilshad Ahmad was holding any grudge/
having previous enmity against the accused.

13. Another independent witness got examined by the
prosecution is i.e. PW6 Master Laxman Sharma, who has

FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 45 of 53
corroborated the version of PW2 Dilshad Ahmad and PW4
Master ‘A’. Since PW6 Master Laxman Sharma also turned out
to be minor, due precautions had been taken to ascertain his
competency to depose before the court. Only after having been
satisfied about competency of PW6 to depose in the court, his
deposition was recorded in the vulnerable witness deposition
room on 02/09/2019. Though he has not identified the accused
due to lapse of time yet he had correctly revealed the name of the
accused as Asif, whose name he came to know later on. He had
also furnished the reason for not identifying the accused as the
accused was not having beard or mustache at the time of
incident. Considering the age of PW6, in the opinion of this
court, non-identification of accused by PW6 has not caused any
significant dent in the case of the prosecution. His testimony is
otherwise consistent with his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.
PW6/A as well as the recovery memo of kidnapped child as Ex.
PW6/B. PW6 had narrated in detail as to how the kidnapper had
approached him along with the kidnapped child near KRBL
(Rice Mill) for the purpose of making phone call to the father of
kidnapped child and the manner in which the kidnapped child
was recovered from Dadri bus stand by the police officials in his
presence. PW6 has correctly identified the kidnapped child on
the basis of photograph Mark X, available in the judicial file.
Despite lengthy cross-examination, he stood by his stand. Nor
any fact has been elicited in his cross-examination to indicate
that he was either a planted witness or had been tutored by
anyone. Nor there is anything on record to indicate that he was
having any prior enmity or ill will with the accused. PW3 Vinod
Kumar Gautam has also corroborated the version of kidnapped

FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 46 of 53
child Master ‘A’ on the aspect of purchase of T-shirt from his
rehri during the detention of kidnapped child by accused.

14. During the course of arguments, several discrepancies in
the testimony of members of the raiding team i.e PW5 Rohit
Kumar, PW7 HC Manish, PW-10 HC Anwar, PW11 Retd. SI
Harkesh Kumar and PW13 SI Arun have been pointed out. It is
submitted that none of these witnesses were able to reveal colour
and description of clothes worn by Laxman, the person from
whose mobile phone the alleged ransom call was made. Nor they
were able to reveal the make and model of the mobile phone of
Laxman. Contradictions in the testimony of above-stated raiding
team members regarding the location where the Kidnapped child
was kept; the mode/means of transport by which the members of
the raiding team proceeded for raid on 15.03.2018; their timings
for departing from or arrival at PS; clothes worn by the
Kidnapped child at the time of recovery; the manner in which
reporting was made at PS Dadri; the description of mobile phone
of Laxman and age of PW-6 Laxman were pointed out.
However, in the opinion of this court, all the above-stated
contradictions and discrepancies as pointed out by Ld. Defence
counsel does not carry much weight in light of unimpeached
testimony of PW2 Dilshad Ahmad, PW4 Master ‘A’ and PW6
Master Laxman Sharma.

15. Admittedly, last seen togetherness of the kidnapped child
with the accused is a material circumstance against the accused
and put a burden upon the accused to explain the time or point
when he left the company of the kidnapped child. The failure of
any explanation of accused to this circumstance leads to an
adverse inference against the accused. Further, Section 106 of

FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 47 of 53
Evidence Act has put a burden upon the accused to tender a
plausible explanation to his last seen togetherness with the
kidnapped child to rebut this presumption of the facts within his
personal knowledge. To ascertain the extent of burden, it is
necessary to see section 106 of Evidence Act as under:

[Section 106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.- When
any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of
proving that fact is upon him. Illustrations

(a) When a person does an act with some intention other than that which the
character and circumstances of the act suggest, the bur- den of proving that
intention is upon him.

(b) A is charged with travelling on a railway without ticket. The burden of
proving that he had a ticket on him.]

16. This above-said section provides, inter alia, that
when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person
the burden of proving that fact is upon him. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India had occasion to deal with this
presumption of section 106 of Indian Evidence Act in State of
Rajasthan v. Thakur Singh VI (2014) SLT 260 where death of
wife was unnatural and witnesses turned hostile. The burden of
proof was fixed upon the accused to explain the death of his wife
took place within the four corners of the house. Prior to it, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had interpreted this section in
Shambhu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer, 1956 SCR 199 that the
section is not intended to shift the burden of proof (in respect of a
crime) on the accused but to take care of a situation where a fact
is known only to the accused and it is well high impossible or
extremely difficult for the prosecution to prove that fact. It was
observed by the court as under:

“This [section 101] lays down the general rule that in a criminal case the
burden of proof is on the prosecution and section 106 is certainly not
intended to relieve if of that duty. On the contrary, it is designed to meet
certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible, or at any rate

FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 48 of 53
disproportionately difficult, for the prosecution to establish facts which are
“especially” within the knowledge of the accused and which he could prove
without difficulty or inconvenience. The work “especially” stresses that. It
means facts that are pre-eminently or exceptionally within his knowledge. It
the section were to be interpreted otherwise, it would lead to the very
startling conclusion that in a murder case the burden lies on the accused to
prove that he did not commit the murder because who could know better
than that he whether he did or did not.”

17. The observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
made in State of West Bengal v. Mir Mohammad Omar, (2000) 8
SCC 282 is also relevant. The court cited an example to explain
the principle behind section 106 of the Evidence Act in following
words:

“During arguments we put a question to learned senior counsel for the
respondents based on a hypothetical illustration. If a boy is kidnapped from
the lawful custody of his guardian in the sight of his people and the
kidnappers disappeared with the prey, what would be the normal inference
if the mangled dead body of the boy is recovered within a couple of hours
from elsewhere. The query was made whether upon proof of the above facts
an inference could be drawn that the kidnappers would have killed the boy.
Learned Senior Counsel finally conceded that in such a case the inference is
reasonably certain that the boy was killed by the kidnappers unless they
explain otherwise.”

18. In view of the above-said interpretation of
presumption of Section 106 of Evidence Act, the burden of proof
to prove the facts establishing the guilt of accused does not
dispense with by the prosecution, however prosecution may not
prove those facts which are exclusively within the knowledge of
the accused and the burden to rebut this presumption has been
put upon him. If the facts established the case to raise a
presumption against the accused, then the failure to discharge
this presumption would cost the accused. No defence evidence
has been led by the accused despite having given the opportunity.

19. Further, accused Asif Saifi was supposed to put
forward some explanation not only during cross-examination of

FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 49 of 53
the PW2, PW4 and PW6 (star witnesses of the prosecution), who
have proved the last togetherness of accused with the kidnapped
child, but also during their statement u/s 313 CrPC. However, he
just replied to most of the incriminating facts emerging from the
evidence as “it is incorrect”, “it is completely false” or “I do not
know”. Specific questions have been asked from the accused in
his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. with regard to his identification by
PW2 Dilshad Ahmad in the CCTV footage from the camera
installed in Gali no. 10 in the locality of house of complainant,
the ransom calls revealed by PW2 and the manner in which he
was apprehended in the presence of PW6 Laxman Sharma vide
question no. 5, 7, 8, 10, 15, 19, 20, to which he did not offer any
plausible explanation and simply claimed ignorance about this
fact by stating “it is completely false”. The accused was
supposed to tender a satisfactory explanation to the fact which
was within his personal knowledge in terms of section 106 of
Evidence Act. No doubt, accused was not supposed to examine
any witness to prove this fact, but he was definitely supposed to
put forward some defense during prosecution evidence and also
to put forward some explanation u/s 313 CrPC to rebut this
presumption, which is not done by him.

20. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held in case titled
Jagroop Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 11 SCC 768 that if
accused failed to tender any plausible explanation to
incriminating evidence, it would serve the purpose of fulfilling
the missing link of the circumstances. The relevant observation is
as under:

“36. Another aspect is to be taken note of. Though the incriminating
circumstances which point to the guilt of the accused had been put to the
accused, yet he could not give any explanation under Section 313 of the

FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 50 of 53
Code of Criminal Procedure except choosing the mode of denial.”

21. In State of Maharashtra v. Suresh [(2000) 1 SCC
471 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 263], it has been held that,
“when the attention of the accused is drawn to such circumstances that
inculpated him in the crime and he fails to offer appropriate explanation or
gives a false answer, the same can be counted as providing a missing link
for completing the chain of circumstances. We may hasten to add that we
have referred to the said decision only to highlight that the accused has not
given any explanation whatsoever as regards the circumstances put to him
under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”

22. In view of the facts, it stands proved that accused
Asif Saifi had kidnapped Master ‘A’ and had made the ransom
call on the mobile phone of his father i.e. PW2 Dilsahd Ahmad.

23. It is further argued that there are serious lapses in the
investigation as the investigating agency had not seized the
relevant CCTV footages as reflected from the testimony of PW2
and PW6, voice recording available in the mobile phone of PW2
Dilshad Ahmad regarding the alleged ransom call, non-seizure of
mobile phone of PW6 Laxman Sharma, non-collection of CAFs
and CDRs of mobile phone of Laxman Sharma and PW2 Dilsahd
Ahmad and the mobile phone of kidnapper i.e. 9873650529.
Nevertheless, dehors such lapse, the prosecution has well
established its case on the basis of unimpeached testimonies of
PW2 Dilshad Ahmad, PW3 Vinod Kumar, PW4 Master ‘A’ and
PW6 Laxman Sharma.

24. THE Hon’ble HIGH COURT OF DELHI In Deepak
Yadav vs State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) in CRL.A. 231/2017
“It is clear that merely because of some defect in the investigation, lapse on
the part of the investigating officer, it cannot be a ground for acquittal.
Further, even if there had been negligence on the part of the investigating
agency or omissions, etc. it is the obligation on the part of the court to
scrutinise the prosecution evidence dehors such lapses to find out whether
the said evidence is reliable or not and whether such lapses affect the object

FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 51 of 53
of finding out the truth. “

25. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hema v. State
reported as (2013) 10 SCC 192 whilst holding that fair
investigation is a part of the constitutional rights guaranteed
under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India and it is the
immediate requirement of the rule of law that investigation must
be fair, transparent and judicious, observed as follows:

“14. It is also settled law that for certain defects in investigation, the
accused cannot be acquitted. This aspect has been considered in various
decisions. In C. Muniappan v. State of T.N. [(2010) 9 SCC 567 : (2010) 3
SCC (Cri) 1402] , the following discussion and conclusions are relevant
which are as follows: (SCC p. 589, para 55) “55. There may be highly
defective investigation in a case. However, it is to be examined as to
whether there is any lapse by the IO and whether due to such lapse any
benefit should be given to the accused. The law on this issue is well settled
that the defect in the investigation by itself cannot be a ground for acquittal.
If primacy is given to such designed or negligent investigations or to the
omissions or lapses by perfunctory investigation, the faith and confidence of
the people in the criminal justice administration would be eroded. Where
there has been negligence on the part of the investigating agency or
omissions, etc. which resulted in defective investigation, there is a legal
obligation on the part of the court to examine the prosecution evidence
dehors such lapses, carefully, to find out whether the said evidence is
reliable or not and to what extent it is reliable and as to whether such lapses
affected the object of finding out the truth. Therefore, the investigation is
not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial. The conclusion
of the trial in the case cannot be allowed to depend solely on the probity of
investigation.”

26. Thus, contention with regard to the lapses in the
investigation, as pointed out by Ld. Defence counsel, fails to
inspire the confidence of this court. The citations relied upon in
defence are not found applicable in the present case in light of
peculiar facts.

DECISION OF THE COURT

27. In the opinion of this court, the testimonies of star
witnesses of the prosecution comes out to be clear, convincing,
trustworthy and inspires confidence of this court. Nothing

FIR No. 126/18 State Vs. Asif Saifi Page 52 of 53
material came out in their respective cross-examination. There is
no reason to disbelieve the version of prosecution witnesses. All
the ingredients of section 364A of IPC are satisfied. The
prosecution has successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt
that on 12-03-2018 at about 2:15 pm, from a place near H. No.
B-14/75, Gali no. 11, Subhash Mohalla, Ghonda, Delhi, the
accused Asif Saifi had kidnapped master ‘A’, aged about 5 years,
detained him in some place in the area of Dadri, UP and
demanded ransom in the sum of Rs. 20 lakhs to release aforesaid
kidnapped child. Accordingly, accused Asif Saifi is hereby
convicted of the offences punishable u/s 364A of IPC. Let the
convict be heard on the quantum of sentence and grant of
compensation on the next date of hearing.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT
 On 16-04-2025             PANKAJ                   Digitally signed by PANKAJ
                                                    ARORA
                                      ARORA         Date: 2025.04.16 17:13:47 +0530



                             (PANKAJ ARORA)
                 ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-04: NORTH-EAST/
                          KARKARDOOMA/ 16-04-2025




FIR No. 126/18               State Vs. Asif Saifi                              Page 53 of 53