Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.@mdashThis order will dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 525-DB of 2003 filed by Baljit @ Sonu, Raman Goswami @ Goldi, Ravi Dhingra and Laxmi Narain, Criminal Appeal No. 566-DB of 2003 filed by Parvez Khan, Criminal Appeal No. 1384-SB of 2003 filed by Laxmi Narain, Criminal Appeal No. 1203-SB of 2003 filed by Baljit Pahwa.
2. The appellants stand convicted u/s 364A/148/149 IPC, for which they have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and other smaller sentences, for which they have filed Criminal Appeal No. 525-DB of 2003 and Criminal Appeal No. 566-DB of 2003. Laxmi Narain and Baljit Pahwa also stand convicted u/s 25 of the Arms Act for which they have filed Criminal Appeal No. 1203-SB of 2003 and Criminal Appeal No. 1384-SB of 2003.
3. Case of the prosecution against the appellants is that they kidnapped Harsh (PW-21) aged 14 years son of Dr. H.K. Sobti (PW20) and Mrs. Indra Sobti (PW-5) when he was going to the school, for ransom.
4. FIR was lodged by Dr. H.K. Sobti on 15.2.2000 at 11-30 A.M., to the effect that on 15.2.2000, his son Harsh who was studying in 7th class in Aggarsain Public School, Kurukshetra, left his home at 7.45 A.M. He received a telephonic message of the Principal of the School at 8-30 A.M. that Harsh had not reached the school. He told the Principal that Harsh had already left for the school at 7-45 A.M. Dr. Sobti and his wife went to the school and met the Principal and were worried as to why the child had not reached the school. When they came to the school in search of Harsh, Mrs. Kanta Goyal (PW-2) who was resident of house No. 1653/13 which was near the said school and another student of 9th class Manish (PW-4) told them that at 8-15 A.M., two boys with muffled faces had put Harsh in a Maruti car without number and having black glasses.
5. After recording the above statement, Ram Chander, SHO (PW-27) went to the place of occurrence, prepared rough site plan, recorded statement of Kanta Goyal, Manish Kumar, student and Mrs. Prabha Singh, Principal and also one Shiv Kumar. He got the telephone of Dr. Sobti kept under observation and went to search the culprits.
6. On the same day at around 12-30 noon, Dr. Sobti received a telephonic call demanding Rs. 15 lac as ransom money for releasing his son, who had been kidnapped. He was told that the place where the money was to reach will be disclosed later. At 3-00 P.M., he again received a telephonic call, asking him whether he had arranged the money. He replied in the affirmative. At 10-00 P.M., Mr. Rathee, SHO came to his house and he disclosed this fact to him. His statement was recorded though the same has not been produced in Court. At 2-45 A.M., in the night, he received another telephonic call asking him to come with money at the Railway Station, Ambala at a Tea shop on the main platform. He went to Ambala with bag containing currency notes worth Rs. 15 lacs. When he reached 3-4 kilometers ahead of Shahbad, he received message on the telephone that his son has been traced and recovered. He went to the Police Station, Ambala Cantt. and reported the matter there. He came back to his house at 7-00 A.M.
7. PW-21 Harsh Sobti, the kidnapped child, was released at about 4/4-30 A.M. on 16.2.2000 and dropped near the house of PW11 Suraj Bhan Rathee. He made a phone call to his mother, who took him away to his house at around 5-30 A.M.
8. On 9.3.2000, Dr. Sobti received a letter (Ex.PS) by post, to the effect that his son has been set free and though it may be difficult to keep him, it will be easy to shoot him and the amount of Rs. 15 lacs should be arranged. The letter was handed over to the police on 10.3.2000. On 12.3.2000, he again received a telephone asking him whether he had arranged the money. He stated that he had arranged Rs. 8 lac. He was threatened that he should arrange the whole money. On 13.3.2000, he again received a telephone and he stated that he had arranged Rs. 10 lacs. Again on 14.3.2000 when he received the telephone, he told that he had arranged Rs. 12 lacs. On 15.3.2000 when he received a telephone, he told that he could not arrange more than 12 lacs. On 15.3.2000, he again received telephone at 2-30 P.M., mentioning that the place and time where the money was to be delivered will be intimated. At 3.45 P.M., he received a telephone that he should board the last compartment of Delhi-Amritsar Super-fast train with bag full of money. He told this fact to the police. He boarded the train at 8-15 P.M. with bag which consisted of some original currency notes and other paper cuttings of the size of the currency notes. The bag contained 50 packets. 45 packets contained one currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 100/-each on the top and the bottom while five packets contained one such currency note on the top. There were 95 currency notes of Rs. 100/-but the remaining portion of the said packets were paper cuttings of the size of currency notes. When the train stopped at Ambala, he got down. He waited for three hours but none came. The police was watching him in plain clothes. At 8-00 p.m., he received a message on his mobile phone No. 9812004143 to the effect that Superintendent of Police has desired him to come back to Kurukshetra. He came back at about 9-00 P.M. At 9-25 P.M., he received a message from the accused on his phone to the effect that at 10-30 P.M. he should leave his house with bag full of money and come to Karnal and leave the bag between Pipli and Karnal. He expressed his inability to come alone, on which he was allowed to bring one person with him. He went in his own car alongwith SI Gulab Singh sitting with him and SI Jai Pal lying down on the back seat in civil dress. He received phone call as to where he had reached. He was instructed to turn back the car from Mohan Nagar Chowk, Kurukshetra. When he reached the over-bridge, he was again asked to turn back the car towards Karnal. When he turned the car towards Pipli, he was asked to slow down the car. He was then asked to stop the car. He came out of the car. On receiving instructions, he threw the bag from the bridge towards the ground. On receiving instructions, he started coming back, but SI Gulab Singh and Jai Pal got down from the car. He came to the office of the Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra at 11-30 P.M. He again went back to the place where he had thrown the bag, where recovery memo was prepared and his statement was recorded. On 16.3.2000, he got a list of telephonic calls made from telephone No. 9812071914 Ex.PJ. He obtained details of calls made from his mobile phone No. 9812004143 Ex.PM. He also attested statement of Baljit Pahwa accused, leading to recovery of the car HR05-B1-0333 owned by his father, made on 18.3.2000.
9. The culprits were apprehended on the basis of calls of the telephone made to Dr. Sobti from mobile phone No. 9812071914 belonging to Ravi Duhan. Ravi Duhan (PW-19) stated that the accused had borrowed his mobile phone. The accused Baljit, Raman, Ravi and Parvej were arrested on 17.3.2000 alongwith car Nol.DL2C4862 and they made disclosure-statements dated 19.3.2000/20.3.2000 leading to recovery of car No. HR-05B-0333, scooter No. HR-07C-3630, parna, pistol, knife, register from which pages were taken to write letters. On 21.3.2000, scooter No. HR-07C6320 was got recovered.
10. On 22.3.2000, Ravi Dhingra and Parvej accused led the police party to STD Booth at Nilokheri and Baljit and Raman accused took the police party to STD booths of Mukesh Sharma and Rakesh at Karnal. Baljit, Raman and Ravi also made demarcation of STD Booth at Karnal. Laxmi Narain accused was arrested on 4.4.2000.
11. Since version of the kidnapped child Harsh is very crucial and he has been examined as PW-21, it may be necessary to refer to his version in detail. According to him, on 15.2.2000 at 7-30 A.M., he hired an auto rickshaw for going to his school and dropped at Aggarsain Chowk, Kurukshetra near his school. When he was proceeding towards the school, a scooterist came from the rear and offered to drop him to the school, which he declined. Then he was addressed by somebody as Chhotu (young boy) and when he turned back, he found a Maruti car of white colour parked at a distance of a view steps. Two persons got out of the car and pushed him inside the car. The occupants of the car threatened him with a knife and pistol to kill him if he cried. They also told him that his father had lot of money and even if they asked for Rs. 50 lacs it will be less. He identified the person who had come on scooter to be Ravi Dhingra accused. In the car, there were four persons including the driver. One of the said persons administered a tablet to him. His eyes were covered with a piece of cloth and his mouth was gagged with a tape. He was made to wear a mask covering his head and mouth. One of the occupants stated that the boss may be informed. He also told the driver to take the car towards Karnal. Thereafter, the car was stopped at some distance and one of the persons asked to display the registration number on the car. The car again stopped after some time and took him and one of the persons asked him to sit on the floor. He was taken to some other place, where his mask and tape were removed, but eyes were kept closed with a piece of cloth. On inquiry, he disclosed his name and name of his father. He was made to lie down on the floor and was administered 2-3 tablets. He became unconscious, but he gained consciousness. He was made to eat the food which he had carried from the house and to drink some water. On his asking, he was also taken for urination. Since the cloth wrapped around his eyes got loosened, he could see the five persons inside the room. One of them said that he alongwith Sonu and Laxmi will go to Ambala (Sonu and Laxmi are both co-accused). He also instructed others to release him at 4-00. The person who was giving instructions was identified as Parvez Khan accused. He also identified the accused present in Court as the persons who were present in the room where he was detained. One person lifted him and asked whether he wanted to go home, to which he replied in affirmative. In the room in which he was confined, he could hear the voice of running train and playing of children. He was taken out of the house and was made to sit on a scooter. On the way, he could see the signboard of Water-Works-Sector 13, Spot Zymnaesium, Dronacharya Stadium and advocates chambers. Then the scooter stopped and he was asked to get down from the scooter. Some one also said that they will go to his house to see if police was present. He entered the house in front of the place where he was dropped and told the occupant of the house that he was son of Dr. Sobti and had been kidnapped and he wanted to make a telephone call. The said person took him to the adjoining house as he did not have the telephone and he made a telephone call from the said house. His mother, sister and bother took him to the house, where he reached at 5-30 A.M.
12. We may now refer to the version given by Dr. H.K. Sobti PW-20 before the Court. He repeated the version given by him in the FIR at 11-30 A.M. and also deposed to later events mentioned in paras 6 and 8 above.
13. Apart from the above evidence, a brief reference to other evidence may also be made.
14. PW-1 Ravi Kumar deposed that the victim was kidnapped by the accused. He identified the accused. He deposed that he had seen the accused kidnapping the victim. His statement was recorded by the police on 15.2.2000 at 2-30 P.M.; PW-2 Kanta Goyal is the owner of the house near the school. She also deposed about the victim having been kidnapped, but according to her, the window panes of the car were black and the faces of the accused were muffled. She later came to know that the kidnapped boy was son of Dr. Sobti; PW-3 Mrs. Prabha Singh, Principal of the School deposed about the fact that the victim Harsh did not come to the school on the day in question and she telephoned father of the child; PW-4 Manish Dhall is a student who had also seen the victim being kidnapped. He reported the matter to his teacher who in turn had reported the matter to the Princdipal; PW-5 Indira Sobti is mother of the victim; PW-6 Sat Pal Sharma had purchased the car No. HR-05B-0333 from Dev Raj Pahwa, father of Baljit Singh @ Sonu accused; PW-7 Praveen Gupta, Judicial Magistrate proved the statements of the accused that they were not prepared to join the test identification parade and recording of statement of Ravi Duhan u/s 164 Cr.P.C.; PW-8 M.C. Mehta, Addl.C.J.M., Kurukshetra proved the statement of the accused Laxmi Narain, to the effect that he did not wish to join the test identification parade; PW-9 Narinder Kumar is the relative of landlord of House No. 772, Sector 13, Kurukshetra. Parvej Khan who deposed that he had let out the house to Parvej Khan in February, 2000, at rent of Rs. 3,600/-per month and on 9.3.2000, accused Sonu returned the keys of the house and on 18.3.2000, Parvej opened the lock with the same key; PW-10 Constable Mukesh Kumar proved the scaled site plan of the place from where the victim was kidnapped; PW-11 Suraj Bhan Rathee proved making of telephone call from his house by the victim; PW-12 Ram Karan is the owner of the Dhaba, who proved making of a telephonic call from the STD booth of that Dhaba. PW-13 Kulwant Singh also deposed about the accused Parvej Khan making telephonic call on 15.3.2000 from a Dhaba, to the effect that he should come with money and board the last compartment of Super-fast train from Delhi to Amritsar. He also gave the number of car i.e. DL2CB/4862, in which Parvej Khan was traveling with other boys. PW14 ASI Ram Chander deposed that on 16.3.2000 at 11-30 A.M., Dr. Sobti came to meet the Superintendent of Police and gave a list of mobile telephone calls. He made a call at one of the numbers, which was responded by Pawan Kumar who disclosed that Mobile No. 71914 belonged to Ravi Duhan, a student of Krishna Engineering College, Kurukshetra; PW-15 Jogi Ram,Sub Divisional Engineer, Telephone Exchange deposed that phone Nos. 20897 and 20900 were kept under observation and he gave details of telephonic calls being Ex.PL from 15.2.2000 to 16.2.2000 (Ph.20897) and Ex.PL/1 from 13.3.2000 to 18.3.2000 (Phone 20900); PW-16 Ravish Chaudhary proved the mobile telephone No. of Dr. Sobti; PW-17 Mohan Lal was a witness to accused Laxmi Narain, taking the police party headed by PW-23 Raj Kumar to house No. 1627, Sector 13, Kurukshetra, from where the victim was kidnapped and to House No. 772, Sector 13, Kurukshetra, where the victim was detained; PW-18 ASI Raj Kumar was a witness to recovery of weapon from accused Baljit; PW-19 Ravi Duhan deposed that his mobile No. 9812071914 was borrowed by the accused Baljit Pahwa who was accompanied by other four accused on 14.3.2000 at 9-00 P.M. but the same was not returned till 16.3.2000 when the police recorded his statement; PW-21 is the victim Harsh Sobti; PW-22 Shri G.S. Wadhwa, Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra deposed about the statements of the accused, declining to give their specimen signatures and hand writing; PW-23 Raj Kumar, SI deposed about the identity of telephones. Accused party and Ravi Dhingra identified telephone booth at Railway Station, Ambala. He also interrogated Luxmi Narain and recorded his disclosure statement leading to recovery of pistol, identification of places of kidnapping and detention. He also deposed about part of investigation conducted by him; PW-24 Jahangir Singh, ASI, CIA Staff was a witness to the disclosure-statement of Parvej Khan leading to recovery of scooter and pistol and disclosure-statement of Baljit, leading to recovery of parna and knife and of Raman Goswami leading to recovery of parna and mobile phone. He also deposed about the disclosure-statement of Ravi Dhingra about a letter for ransom; PW-25 Gurdawaya Ram, Inspector deposed, inter-alia, about his having accompanied Dr. Sobti in the Super-fast train; PW-26 Ashok Kumar, DSP is the Investigating Officer, who deposed about various steps for investigation.
15. The prosecution also produced documents Ex.PA to PHH/3 which included FIR, statements, site plan, ransom letter, recovery memos etc.
16. The accused denied the prosecution allegations and stated that they were picked up from their respective houses and kept in illegal confinement from 15.3.2000 to 17.3.2000. They were shown to the prosecution witnesses. They were photographed and their photographs were shown on local T.V. centres. They were produced in Court, on which date Bar was on strike and they could not engage any lawyer. They could not reply to the application for test identification parade. They had been physically and mentally tortured. They were falsely implicated to shield the real culprits. The accused produced defence witnesses and in support of their defence, they also produced documents Ex.DA to DF.
17. The trial Court after considering the evidence on record, held that the accused formed an unlawful assembly and in pursuance of common object, kidnapped Harsh Sobti, to compel his father to pay ransom amount of Rs. 15 lacs. They also kept Harsh Sobti in confinement after kidnapping and threatened to cause his death, to compel his father to pay ransom money.
18. We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
19. Main question in this appeal is whether there is reliable evidence to identify and connect the appellants with the offence of kidnapping Harsh Sobti for ransom and whether conviction of the appellants u/s 364-A was sustainable in law.
20. We are of the view that there is no reason whatsoever to reject the testimony of PW-21 Harsh Sobti, aged 14 years, who was kidnapped and kept in detention by the accused. His version proves the acts of kidnapping, wrongful confinement and criminal intimidation as also that the object of kidnapping was for ransom. Repeated demands for ransom stand duly established from the evidence of Dr. Sobti PW-20. Version of Dr. Sobti is duly corroborated by the investigating officers and recoveries. There is no material discrepancy causing doubt about veracity of version of the prosecution witnesses. No reason has been shown as to why the case of the prosecution be not accepted. PWs. have no animus against the accused. The identity of the accused has been duly established by Harsh Sobti (PW-21), who remained in the detention of the accused persons and had opportunity to see them. It is well settled that evidence of identification in Court is not inadmissible though weight to be attached to such identification depends on an individual fact situation. Statement made in Court is substantive evidence while evidence of identification parade is corroborative evidence. If circumstances lend assurance to identification in Court, the evidence of such identification can be accepted
21. Faced with the above situation, Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the offence will fall u/s 363 or 365 IPC or u/s 506 IPC, which did not provide for minimum sentence of life imprisonment. He submitted that the appellants having been in custody for sufficient period, their conviction was liable to be altered and sentence reduced to the period already undergone.
22. We do not find any merit in this contention.
23. We are of the view that offence u/s 364-A IPC was clearly proved. The ingredients of the offence are kidnapping or detention for ransom and threat or apprehension of death or hurt to compel an act or omission or payment of ransom. The evidence of PW-20 Dr. Sobti clearly is that immediately after kidnapping when Harsh Sobti was in custody of the kidnappers, demand for ransom was made. Again in the night, at 2.40 A.M., Dr. Sobti received a telephonic call asking him to come with bag full of money at Railway Station Ambala Cantt. No doubt supplementary statement, said to have been made by Dr. Sobti, has not been produced and identification of the telephone from where the call was made has not been shown, there is no reason to doubt the version given by Dr. Sobti. Discrepancy in investigation cannot by itself a ground to reject the testimony of a reliable witness.
24. Section 364-A is 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 organisation 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.
25. A reference to above provision shows that once a person has been kidnapped and kept in detention and either threat is given or the conduct of such accused gives rise to reasonable apprehension that the person kidnapped may be put to death or hurt to compel any other person to pay ransom, the offence is complete. Release of kidnapped person without receiving ransom does not wipe out the offence.
26. In the present case, not only demand of ransom was made when the kidnapped child was in custody of the kidnappers, subsequent conduct of the accused in sending a letter for ransom and making telephonic calls for ransom also shows that kidnapping and detention was for ransom. The child could be put to death or hurt and the object was to compel the father of the child to pay ransom.
27. The said section has been subject matter of consideration by the Honble Supreme Court, inter-alia, in
15. In the instant case as the factual position found by the trial court and the High Court goes to show, the object of abduction was for ransom. This was clearly conveyed to the victim PW 2. He was even conveyed the amount to be paid. It cannot be laid down as a straitjacket formula that the demand for payments has to be made to a person who ultimately pays. By way of illustration it can be said that a rich businessman is abducted. He is told that for his release his family members have to pay a certain amount of money; but money actually belongs to the person abducted. The payment for release is made by the persons to whom the demand is made. The demand originally is made to the person abducted or kidnapped. After making the demand to the kidnapped or abducted person merely because the demand could not be conveyed to some other person, as the accused is arrested in the meantime, does not take away the offence out of the purview of Section 364-A. It has to be seen in such a case as to what was the object of kidnapping or abduction. The essence of abduction as noted above is causing to stay in isolation and demand for ransom. The demand in the present case has already been made by conveying it to the victim. In
In Suman Sood @ Kamal Jeet Kaur (supra), it was observed:
55. Offences of kidnapping and abduction were included in the Penal Code in 1860 when the Code was enacted. An offence of kidnapping for ransom, however, did not find place then. It was only in 1993 that by Act 42 of 1993, Section 364-A was inserted. The offence is serious in nature and punishment prescribed for the crime is death sentence or imprisonment for life and also of payment of fine.
x x x x x x x x x x x x
57. Before the above section is attracted and a person is convicted, the prosecution must prove the following ingredients:
(1) The accused must have kidnapped, abducted or detained any person;
(2) He must have kept such person under custody or detention; and
(3) Kidnapping, abduction or detention must have been for ransom. (See also
58. The term ransom has not been defined in the Code.
59. As a noun, ransom means a sum of money demanded or paid for the release of a captive. As a verb, ransom means to obtain the release of (someone) by paying a ransom, detain (someone) and demand a ransom for their release. To hold someone to ransom means to hold someone captive and demand payment for their release. (Concise Oxford English Dictionary , 2002, p. 1186)
60. Kidnapping for ransom is an offence of unlawfully seizing a person and then confining the person usually in a secret place, while attempting to extort ransom. This grave crime is sometimes made a capital offence. In addition to the abductor a person who acts as a go-between to collect the ransom is generally considered guilty of the crime.
61. According to Advanced Law Lexicon (3rd Edn.,p. 3932):
Ransom is a sum of money paid for redeeming a captive or prisoner of war, or a prize. It is also used to signify a sum of money paid for the pardoning of some great offence, and or setting the offender who was imprisoned.
62. Stated simply, ransom is a sum of money to be demanded to be paid for releasing a captive, prisoner or detenu.
28. Thus, in the present case, Section 364-A is clearly attracted and conviction of the appellants is justified in law.
In view of above reasons, we do not find any merit in these appeals and the same are dismissed.
