Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 665 OF 2006
P. Liaquat Ali Khan ...Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh ...Respondent
J U D G M E N T
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the
Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant.
The learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool found the accused
appellant guilty of offence punishable under Section 364-A of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’) and sentenced him to undergo
imprisonment for life.
1
2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
P.W.1 is grandfather and PW-2 is father of the victim minor girl-
Keerthi. PW-7 is their driver. PW-3 is maid servant, PW-5 is the class
teacher of Nursery class and PW-6 is Principal, of Sri Lakshmi English
Medium School, Kurnool. Keerthi aged about 3 years was studying in
Nursery class of the school. On 03.7.2001 at about 8.30 a.m., PW 7 dropped
the girl at the school and at about 8.45 a.m, one person came to her class,
informed PW 5 that parents of the child forgot to give syrup to her and on
his request, the girl was sent with him to administer the same. After noticing
that the child has been carried away by him, PW 5 instructed PW 3 to stop
him. The said person did not stop though cautioned by PW 3 and so, she
asked PW 8, who was coming by scooter, to stop that person. When PW 8
stopped him and enquired about the matter, the said person informed that he
was taking the child for administering syrup and saying so, he boarded a bus
and went away. Thereafter, PW 3 went to the shop of PW 4 and enquired
from him who also informed her about the taking away of the child by the
said person. Later, PWs 3 and 5 went to PW 6 and informed about the
incident to her, who in turn informed about the incident to the parents of the
child. The parents came to the school, searched for the child in N.R. Peta
area of Kurnool and surrounding places. PWs 3 and 5 narrated the physical
2
features of the kidnapper. PW-12 registered the case on the basis of Ex. P1
-report and PW 13 took up further investigation.
On 4.7.2001, Ex. P2. - letter demanding Rs. 1 crore for releasing the
child was received by PW l, who handed over the same to PW 13 in the
presence of PW 11 under Ex.P5 - panchanama. On 9.7.2001, another letter
addressed in the name of PW 2 was dropped in the house of PW 9 a
neighbour of PW 1, demanding Rs.75 lakhs with an instruction to keep the
amount in a bag and place it under a culvert situated after crossing Radio
Station on 10.7.2001, which was handed over to PW 13 under Ex. P6
-panchanama. On 10.7.2001 at about 12.30 p.m. on the instructions of PW
13, PW 2 placed a bag containing papers under the culvert. Mufti police
constables, PW 2, PW 13 and mediators were hiding in nearby throny
bushes around the culvert. At about 1.00 p.m. the accused came to that
place by a scooter, picked up the bag and when he reached the road mufti
constables surrounded and caught hold of him and on enquiry, accused
furnished his particulars. In pursuance of Ex. P 7- Statement, he led them to
Avanthi Nagar Street near House No 2-19-10-12 which was locked from
outside with a to let board. The accused opened the doors and led them to
rear side bathroom where the child was found. PW-2 identified the child.
3
Ex. P.8 is the said panchanama and Ex.P10 is rough sketch showing
topography of the house where the girl was confined. On requisition by
police, PW 10- Magistrate conducted test identification parade on
21.7.2001.
After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. Since the
accused persons pleaded innocence, trial was held. To substantiate the
accusations, thirteen witnesses were examined and several documents
were exhibited and case properties were marked.
The trial Court held the appellant guilty. In appeal High Court
declined to interfere.
3. The basic stand in the present appeal was that contents of Exh.P2 and
P3 were not proved to have been written by the appellant and if that aspect
is not proved the question of kidnapping for ransom does not arise as there
was no evidence to show that the accused demanded any amount. It was
also submitted that Section 364-A had no application.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other hand supported
the judgment.
4
5. It is to be noted that while granting leave it was restricted to the
nature of offence only. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
Section 364-A was introduced by Notification in the Official Gazette w.e.f.
3.12.1992 The Statement of Objects and Reasons for the introduction shows
that kidnapping for ransom is relatable only to cases where intention was to
cause death or hurt and not to a case of this nature. The object of the
introduction has also been referred to in this regard.
6. Section 364-A deals with separate type of offence. The reasons for
introduction of the provision need to be noted. Sections 364, 365, 366 and
367 deal with various situations under Chapter XVI. Accused got written
Exts. P2 and P3 and his house is at a short distance from the house of the
victim. The accused’s demand for ransom is involved and therefore Section
364-A has clearly application. The evidence on record shows that in terms
of the disclosure made by the accused the child was recovered. The accused
came near the culvert and picked up the bag containing money. The
prosecution case is that the place was indicated where the bag was to be
kept. As indicated above arrangement was worked out on 10.7.2001 and the
bag was put as indicated by the accused who came to collect the same.
5
7. Section 364-A reads as follows:
“ 364-A-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
cause hurt or death to such person in order to compel the
Government or a 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.”
8. Section 364-A deals with separate type of offence where ransom is a
distinguishing feature. The demand of ransom has been clearly established
and the role played by the accused has been analysed by the trial Court and
the High Court. We find no infirmity in the present appeal to warrant
interference which is accordingly dismissed.
………………………………….J.
(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
………………………………….J.
(ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)
New Delhi,
April 17, 2009
6
7