Court sends kidnapper back to Tihar jail
New Delhi: A man has been ordered by a Delhi court to serve the remaining part of his one-year jail term given for kidnapping his employer's five-year-old son 15 years ago to avenge the rejection of his proposal to marry his niece to the minor victim.
"The appellant be taken into custody and sent to jail to undergo the unexpired period of sentence," Additional Sessions Judge Narinder Kumar said, while upholding the one-year jail term awarded by the magisterial court to Vinod Kumar Yadav.
Dismissing Uttar Pradesh native Yadav's appeal, the judge said, "Kidnapping the victim child caused pain and agony not only to the child but also to his parents."
Yadav had moved the sessions court against the trial court's March 2012 decision, which had sentenced him to the jail term along with a fine of Rs 1,000 for kidnapping the boy in 1997.
The sessions judge refused to reduce the quantum of sentence saying "the magistrate had already taken a lenient view."
The court, however, set off the period of detention already undergone by Yadav during the investigation, inquiry and trial of the case.
The case against Yadav was registered on the complaint of his employer, whose son he had picked up from the school.
The victim's father had lodged the complaint, saying that Yadav, who used to work at his factory for over a year, belonged to same caste as himself.
He said being Yadvas, he and his wife would often ask him to marry his niece (Bhanji) with his minor son, who was then barely five year old, but he had rejected his proposal.
"Even thereafter, appellant used to allure for acceptance of his proposal but every time they used to put it off on one excuse or the other," the police added.
The police further said on the day of the incident also, when the victim parents had refused the marriage proposal, Yadav got angry and left saying that if he does not accept his proposal, he will have to face the consequences.
"The counsel for appellant has not been able to assail the testimony of the child witness.
This court does not see any ground to disbelieve the unchallenged testimony of the victim child who specifically named the accused before the trial court as the person who kidnapped him, took him away from the guardianship of his parents and kept him in confinement," the judge said.