Top

Delhi HC awards life term to 4 for kidnapping child

The four men had claimed that they were innocents and falsely implicated in the case, prosecution said.

New Delhi: The Delhi high court has awarded life imprisonment to four men for kidnapping a seven-year-old boy for a ransom of Rs 25 lakh in 2010. The high court said it has been proved by the prosecution that the four men were involved in the child’s kidnapping and their identity has also been established in the court.

A two-judge bench of Justices Vipin Sanghi and P.S. Teji upheld a trial court’s judgment convicting and sentencing to life term the four men for the offence of conspiracy and kidnapping the minor for ransom. Those sentenced are Bunty, Brijesh, Kamal Saxena and Ravinder.

The prosecution case was that on December 11, 2010, when the child was playing with his friends near his house in northwest Delhi, his two tenants, along with two others, took him away in an autorickshaw. The child’s friends informed his parents that he had gone with some persons in an autorickshaw. When the minor did not return home, his parents lodged a complaint at Saraswati Vihar police station.

After sometime, the minor’s father had received a call demanding Rs 25 lakh as ransom to release the child and also threatened that they would kill the boy, if police were informed about the kidnapping. The kidnappers had asked the victim’s father to come to Uttar Pradesh’s Rampur along with the money from where the child was recovered with the help of the police and accused were arrested, according to the prosecution.

The four men had claimed that they were innocents and falsely implicated in the case, prosecution said. The high court, however, said it has been proved from the testimonies of the child, his friend, father and police officials that the four men were involved in the kidnapping of the victim.

The high court bench said: “We are further of the view that the conviction of the men is based upon true appreciation of evidence and material brought on record and we find no ground to interfere in the judgement of conviction and order on sentence.”

Next Story