Punjab-Haryana High Court
Paramjit Singh Alias Pamma And Another vs State Of Punjab on 8 September, 2011
Author: S.S. Saron
Bench: S.S. Saron, Jora Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRA No.586-DB of 2007
Date of decision: 08.09.2011
Paramjit Singh alias Pamma and another
.... Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab
.... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SARON.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH.
Present: Mr. Gurinderjit Singh, Advocate for appellant No.1-
Paramjit Singh alias Pamma.
Mr. Sarvesh Gupta, Advocate for Mr. S.S. Rana,
Advocate for appellant No.2-Vijay Kumar.
Mr. U.S. Dhaliwal, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
***
S.S. SARON, J.
The Crl. Appeal No.586-DB of 2007 has been filed by Paramjit Singh alias Pamma and Vijay Kumar against the judgment and order dated 14.6.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar whereby the accused Paramjit Singh alias Pamma (appellant No.1 in CRA No.586-DB of 2007), Vijay Kumar (appellant No.2 in CRA No.586-DB of 2007) and Charanjit Singh alias Bobby (appellant in CRA No.560-DB of 2006) were held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 364-A Indian Penal Code ("IPC" - for short). By a separate order passed on the same date, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar sentenced all the accused to undergo imprisonment for life; besides, pay a fine of `5000/- each and in the event of CRA No.586-DB of 2007 [2] default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for six months. Charanjit Singh (appellant in CRA No.560-DB of 2006) died on 18.2.2011 and by a separate order dated 30.8.2011 passed in CRA No.560-DB of 2006, the appeal against him was disposed of as having abated in terms of the provisions of Section 394 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("CrPC" - for short). However, the present appeal of Paramjit Singh alias Pamma and Vijay Kumar (appellants) survives.
The FIR (Ex.PA/2) was registered on the basis of statement (Ex.PA) of Pawan Kumar, complainant (PW1). According to Pawan Kumar, complainant (PW1) he was residing at Laloki Patti, Bada Pind, Police Station Goraya, District Jalandhar with his family and was working as a Deed-Writer in the Courts at Phillaur. He had two children. The elder was a daughter namely Priyanka aged about 16 years and the younger was a son namely Parteek Kumar alias Prince (PW-2) aged about 12/13 years. The son of the complainant namely Parteek Kumar (PW-2) was studying in the 7th class at Excelsior Convent School, Senior Wing, Atta, Goraya. He used to go to school on his bicycle in the morning and returned back in the evening. On the date of the incident i.e. 14.5.2004, the son of Pawan Kumar, complainant (PW1) went to school on his bicycle. However, after the school had closed, he did not return home. The complainant (PW1) was informed from his house on telephone that his son while coming back from school had been taken away from the small bridge of the canal from the unmetalled (Katcha) path in the area of village Rurka Khurd by two unknown clean shaven youngmen on a scooter. On coming home, the complainant (PW1) made inquiries in this regard. From the children studying in his class he (PW1) came to know that two youngmen, one of them looked like a 'bhaiya' having a black colour complexion clean shaven CRA No.586-DB of 2007 [3] and the other looked like a 'mullah' with fair complexion wearing a cap on his head had abducted his son on a white colour scooter without number. They had represented to Parteek Kumar alias Prince (PW-2) that his mother was ill and admitted in the hospital and that he should accompany them to the hospital. Both the persons had taken away the son of the complainant (PW-1) on a scooter and his cycle was left near the small bridge of canal in Rurka Khurd. The son of the complainant (PW1) was wearing brown trousers and a light almond coloured shirt of school uniform. He had been searching for his son along with others living around but they could not find him. He (PW-1) came to lodge a report and requested for initiating proceedings. The statement of Pawan Kumar Sharma complainant (PW1) was recorded, which was attested by Surinder Singh SI, Police Station Goraya (PW-8). An endorsement was made by Surinder Singh SI (PW6), Police Station Goraya that he along with ASI Pawan Kumar, HC Pirthi Raj, Constable Manjinder Singh and Constable Gurbax Singh were present at Bus Stand Goraya in connection with patrolling and checking of notorious persons, when Pawan Kumar (PW-1) came along with Mohinder Singh, Vice Principal of School at Atta and got his statement recorded. It was read over and explained to Pawan Kumar, complainant (PW1) by SI Surinder Singh (PW6) and Pawan Kumar, complainant (PW1) admitted the same to be correct and signed it in Punjabi. From the statement, offences under Sections 364-A and 365 IPC were made out.
The statement of the complainant (PW-1) that was recorded was sent to the Police Station through Constable Manjinder Singh for registration of a case (FIR). The number of the case was asked to be intimated after registration. Besides, the Control Room was also asked to be informed through CRA No.586-DB of 2007 [4] telephonic message. Special reports were asked to be issued and sent to the higher officers. SI Surinder Singh (PW6) along with the complainant (PW-1) and police officials proceeded to the place of occurrence. On receipt of the ruqa at the Police Station, FIR No.47 dated 14.5.2004 (Ex.PA/2) was registered by ASI Om Parkash.
Surinder Singh SI (PW6) went to the spot and prepared the site plan (Ex.PO). On 15.5.2004 Surinder Singh SI (PW6) along with the police party was present at the bridge of the canal at 'T' point Virka and Pawan Kumar, complainant (PW6) and HC Pirthi Raj were also accompanying him. Pawan Kumar, complainant (PW6) had reached there later. They were checking the vehicles there and the accused Charanjit Singh (appellant in CRA No.560-DB of 2006) and Vijay Kumar (appellant No.2 in CRA No.586-DB of 2007) came there. They were on a white colour Bajaj Chetak scooter without number. In between them one boy namely Parteek Kumar (PW2) was sitting who had been kidnapped. They were stopped by Surinder Singh SI (PW6). The child was identified by his father Pawan Kumar, complainant (PW1). Memo (Ex.PD) regarding recovery of the child was prepared. Pawan Kumar Sharma (PW1) and Pirthi Raj signed the said memo as attesting witnesses. The scooter was also taken in possession vide memo Ex.PD. On personal search of Charanjit Singh (appellant in CRA No.560-DB of 2006), two bundles of currency notes of the denomination of `500/- each amounting to `11 lacs were recovered from his left pocket. On the first and last note of each bundle, the complainant (PW-1) had put his initials. The complainant Pawan Kumar (PW1) identified the bundles of notes. From the shirt pocket of Charanjit Singh (appellant in CRA NO.560-DB of 2006), one mobile phone of Panasonic make was also recovered. The cash amount and the CRA No.586-DB of 2007 [5] mobile phone were taken in possession by the police vide memo Ex.PB. It was signed by Pawan Kumar (PW1) and HC Pirthi Raj. On personal search of Vijay Kumar (appellant No.2 in CRA No.586-DB of 2007) from his right pant pocket, two bundles of currency notes of the denominations of `500/- each were recovered. The first and the last note of each bundle had the initials of Pawan Kumar (PW1). From the shirt pocket of Vijay Kumar (appellant No.2 in CRA No.586-DB of 2007) an 'Ericsson' make mobile phone was recovered. The bundles of notes and mobile phones were taken in possession by the police vide memo Ex.PC. Pawan Kumar Sharma, complainant (PW1) identified his signatures on the bundles of notes. Cash of `1 lac in two bundles (Ex.P3 and Ex.P4) was recovered from Charanjit Singh (appellant in CRA No.560-DB of 2006) and `1 lac was recovered from Vijay Kumar (appellant No.2 in CRA No.586-DB of 2007) in two bundles (Ex.P5 and Ex.P6). Charanjit Singh (appellant in CRA No. 560-DB of 2006) made a disclosure statement that he had kept `2 lacs in a room which he had taken on rent at Phagwara. He had concealed the said amount in the room and he could get it recovered. The disclosure statement (Ex.PE) of Charanjit Singh was recorded by Surinder Singh, SI (PW6). Pawan Kumar (PW1) and HC Pirthi Raj attested the said disclosure statement (Ex.PE). Vijay Kumar (appellant No.2 in CRA No. 586-DB of 2007) also disclosed during interrogation that he had concealed `2 lacs in a room at Phagwara which he could get recovered. The said disclosure statement (Ex.PG) was also recorded, which was signed by Vijay Kumar and attested by the attesting witnesses. Charanjit Singh as per his disclosure statement (Ex.PE) got recovered four bundles of currency notes of the denomination of `500/- each from the Godrej almirah lying in his room. The bundles of currency notes recovered from CRA No.586-DB of 2007 [6] Charanjit Singh amounted to `3 lacs. These were sealed with the seal of Surinder Singh SI (PW6) bearing impression 'SS' and were taken in possession vide memo Ex.PF. The bundles of notes were Ex.P7 to Ex.P10. Vijay Kumar as per his disclosure statement (Ex.PG) also got recovered two bundles of currency notes of the denomination of `500/- each from the wooden box lying in his room. These bundles of notes had the initials of the complainant (PW1) which were identified by him. The total amount of `2 lacs recovered from Vijay Kumar was taken in possession by the police vide memo Ex.PH. The bundles of notes were Ex.P11 and Ex.P12. The recovery memo was signed by the complainant Pawan Kumar (PW1) and HC Pirthi Singh. All the notes were bearing the initials of Pawan Kumar (PW-1) i.e. the first and last note of each bundle was identified by him. Charanjit Singh had also placed a wig on his head, which was also taken in possession by the police vide memo Ex.PJ. The child was handed over to his father Pawan Kumar complainant (PW1) and memo (Ex.PK) in this regard was prepared. It was also signed by Pawan Kumar (PW1) and HC Pirthi Raj. The site plan (Ex.PP) from where the two accused Charanjit Singh and Vijay Kumar were arrested was prepared. The site plan (Ex.PQ) regarding place of recovery from Charanjit Singh and the site plan (Ex.PR) of place of recovery from Vijay Kumar were prepared. The accused namely Charanjit Singh and Vijay Kumar were arrested. The statements of witnesses were recorded. The case property was deposited in the 'Malkhana' on return to the Police Station. The accused were put in the lockup.
Investigations were also conducted in the case by ASI Sikander Singh (PW7). On 15.4.2004 ASI Sikander Singh (PW7) was In-charge of Chowki Dosanj Kalan. In connection with the investigation of the present case, separate Police parties were CRA No.586-DB of 2007 [7] made and raids were conducted. One police party was headed by SI Surinder Singh (PW6) and the other by him (ASI Sikander Singh PW-7). He along with ASI Subash Chander reached the drain of village Virka on the bridge. There SI Surinder Pal Singh (PW6) along with the complainant (PW1) and two clean shaven gentlemen and a child (PW2) were present on the bridge of the drain and he was interrogating them. During interrogation the two accused persons (Charanjit Singh and Vijay Kumar) disclosed that the third accused person belonged to village Bada Pind and he had taken `3 lacs. ASI Sikander Singh (PW7) along with ASI Subash Chander went to village Bada Pind and conducted a raid at the house of Paramjit Singh alias Pamma (appellant No.1 in CRA No.586-DB of 2007). He was residing there in a rented house and was apprehended at the spot. On interrogation he made a disclosure statement (Ex.PL) that a sum of `3 lacs which came as his share in the kidnapping was concealed in a wooden almirah and was packed in a black polythene packet which was lying under the books. His disclosure statement (Ex.PL) in this regard was recorded by ASI Sikander Singh (PW7) which was attested by ASI Subash Chander and Constable Gurbax Singh. Paramjit Singh alias Pamma (appellant No.1 in CRA No.586-DB of 2007) led the police party as per his disclosure statement and got recovered the black polythene bag which had been concealed under the books. From the said black polythene bag, six bundles of currency notes of the denomination of `500/- each bearing the initials of Pawan Kumar complainant (PW1) were recovered. The same were taken in possession vide memo Ex.PM and sealed in a parcel with the seal of 'SS'. The bundles of notes (Ex.P13 to Ex.P18) were recovered. The site plan (Ex.PS) of the place of recovery was prepared and Paramjit Singh alias Pamma (appellant No.1 in CRA No.586-DB of 2007) was arrested. CRA No.586-DB of 2007 [8] He was put in the lock-up and the case property was deposited in the 'Malkhana'.
After completion of the investigation, police report (Challan) was filed in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phillaur on 3.8.2004. The learned Magistrate observed that since the offence punishable under Section 364-A IPC was exclusively triable by the Court of Session, committed the case to the said Court for 5.10.2004. The accused were ordered to be produced before the learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar on the said date. The learned Additional Sessions Judge to whom the case was assigned, charge-sheeted the accused. It was alleged on or about 14.5.2004 in the area of village Rurka Khurd, Charanjit Singh (since deceased) and Paramjit Singh alias Pamma (appellant No.1 in CRA No.586-DB of 2007) agreed with Vijay Kumar (appellant No.2 in CRA No.586-DB of 2007) to do an illegal act by illegal means to kidnap Parteek Kumar alias Prince (PW2) a minor boy of about 12/13 years to extract ransom from his father Pawan Kumar Sharma (PW1) and in pursuance of said conspiracy, Charanjit Singh and Paramjit Singh kidnapped Parteek Kumar alias Prince (PW-2) on that date at about 3.00 p.m. and thus committed an offence under Section 364-A IPC punishable with death or imprisonment for life and thereby they all committed criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120- B IPC. Secondly, on or about 14.5.2004 in the area of village Rurka Khurd, Charanjit Singh (since deceased), Paramjit Singh alias Pamma (appellant No.1 in CRA No.586-DB of 2007) and Vijay Kumar (appellant No.2 in CRA No.586-DB of 2007) kidnapped Parteek Kumar alias Prince (PW2) a minor boy and kept him in detention after such kidnapping and threatened to cause the death of Parteek Kumar alias Prince (PW2) in order to compel Pawan Kumar Sharma (PW1), father of the boy to pay CRA No.586-DB of 2007 [9] ransom a sum of `10 lacs, out of which he (PW1) had paid `8 lacs and thereby they all committed an offence under Section 364-A IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.
The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 16 witnesses. The statements of the accused in terms of Section 313 CrPC were recorded. Paramjit Singh alias Pamma (appellant No.1 in CRA No.586-DB of 2007) in his statement took the stand that on 15.5.2004 at 6.30 p.m. when he was cutting fodder for the cattle, he was arrested by Gunman of Kamaljit Singh, DSP Phillaur. He was taken to the Police Station Goraya where his thumb impression and signatures were taken on 10-15 blank papers. He was never taken anywhere except the Ilaqa Magistrate, Phillaur. He was never taken to Bada Pind by the police after his arrest. Nothing was recovered from him. He did not know the other accused in this case. He was doing the work of running a tea shop in partnership with Balbir Kumar alias Kala and their shop was near Rikhi Mandir, Goraya. There was a dispute of partition of agricultural land between Pawan Kumar Sharma (PW1) and Vijay Kumar (appellant No.2 in CRA No.586- DB of 2007) and he being a friend of Vikas Kumar Sharma son of Vijay Sharma was helping Vijay Sharma. This was the reason that he was implicated in this case. Vijay Kumar (appellant No.2 in CRA No.586-DB of 2007) in his defence stated that the case had been falsely planted on him as he used to take music system of Charanjit Singh (since deceased) to various places for social functions. The police took him to the house of Charanjit Singh (since deceased) on the next day of the alleged occurrence at about 9.00 a.m. or 10.00 a.m. At that time Brij Mohan who also resided in the same premises as Charanjit Singh accused was also present. The police took Charanjit Singh in custody at about CRA No.586-DB of 2007 [10] 9.00 a.m. to 10.00 a.m. from his house and asked him to take the police to the house of Bhinda Bhangara Wala to village Thinda. On reaching village Thinda said Bhinda managed to run away and could not be apprehended by the police and the police party failed to arrest Bhinda on that day. Due to pressure of people, he (Vijay Kumar) and Charanjit Singh were falsely implicated in the case. He did not suffer any disclosure statement nor had he got recovered any money as he alleged.
In defence Santosh Kumari (DW1) wife of Vijay Kumar and Constable Surinder Singh (DW2) were examined. Santosh Kumari (DW1) stated that on 15.5.2004, the police did not come to their house to apprehend Paramjit Singh. In fact he was apprehended from somewhere else. On the said day i.e. 15.5.2004, the police never brought Paramjit Singh alias Pamma to their house. The police never visited their house. Paramjit Singh alias Pamma used to visit their house being friend of their children. He was not residing in their house. Pawan Kumar (PW1) was her 'devar' (husband's younger brother). No money was recovered from her house. Surinder Singh Constable (DW2) stated that he had brought the daily dairy register pertaining to 15.5.2004. Report No.23 dated 15.5.2004 recorded at 5.30 p.m. was correct as per the record which was Ex.DC. Police Station Goraya, it is stated, is on G.T. Road at Goraya. Phagwara City was about 10 kms from Goraya. Village Virk was towards the side of Phagwara from Goraya.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge after considering the evidence and material on record found all the accused guilty for the commission of the offence under Section 364-A IPC. They were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life; besides, pay a fine of `5000/- and in case the convict who CRA No.586-DB of 2007 [11] failed to deposit the fine, he was ordered to undergo further imprisonment of six months.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submit that there are grave discrepancies in the prosecution case. It is submitted that Pawan Kumar (PW1) states that he gave money to the accused on 15.5.2004 along with Harphool Chand. However, Harphool Chand was not examined. It is further stated that Parteek Kumar alias Prince (PW2) who was kidnapped did not raise any noise which he could raise at Novelty Sweets. In any case it is submitted that the offence under Section 364-A IPC is not made out as kidnapping or ransom was not to compel the Government or any foreign State or international inter- governmental organization to pay ransom.
In response, learned State counsel has submitted that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellants in every repect and there are no discrepancies in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses. The mere fact that Harphool Chand had not been examined is by itself no ground to discard the prosecution case. It is further submitted that the fact that Parteek Kumar alias Prince (PW2) did not raise any noise while having eatables at Novelty Sweets is inconsequential as he was unaware at that time that he had been kidnapped. Besides, it is submitted that the offence under Section 364-A IPC is clearly made out as the accused had kidnapped the child and had demanded ransom. The obvious inference was that failure to pay the ransom would result in death of the minor Parteek Kumar alias Prince (PW2). Therefore, it is submitted that the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. In respect of the incident that had occurred it may be CRA No.586-DB of 2007 [12] noticed that Pawan Kumar complainant (PW1) had a son namely Parteek Kumar alias Prince (PW2) who was studying in the 7th class at Excelsior Convent School, Senior Wing, Atta, Goraya. He used to go to his school on his bicycle in the morning and used to return back in the evening. On the date of the incident i.e. 14.5.2004 the son of Pawan Kumar complainant (PW1) went to school on his bicycle. However, after the school had closed, he did not return home. At about 3.15 p.m. Pawan Kumar (PW1) received a telephone call from his wife that Prince (PW2) while coming back from school had been taken away from the small bridge of the canal from the unmetalled (Katcha) path in the area of village Rurka Khurd by two unknown clean shaven youngmen on a scooter. On coming home, the complainant (PW1) made inquiries in this regard. From the children studying in the class of Parteek (PW-2), the complainant (PW1) came to know that two youngmen, one of them looked like a 'bhaiya' having a black colour complexion clean shaven and the other looked like a 'mullah' with fair complexion wearing a cap on his head had abducted his son on a white colour scooter without number. They tried to search for the son of the complainant with the help of his friends but they could not find him. The complainant (PW-
1) reported the matter to the police and his statement (Ex.PA) was recorded. After reporting the matter to the police, they again searched for his son. At about 5.40 p.m., Pawan Kumar (PW1) received a telephone call that his son had been kidnapped and a sum of `10 lacs was demanded from him. Ultimately, the matter was settled for `8 lacs for releasing his son. Pawan Kumar (PW1) on 15.5.2004 along with his friend Harphool Chand came to Peed Paur Chowk near Phagwara along with the money. There three persons came on a scooter. They took the sum of `8 lacs from Pawan Kumar (PW1). Then Pawan Kumar Sharma CRA No.586-DB of 2007 [13] (PW1) informed the police about taking the money. The said three persons had told Pawan Kumar (PW1) and Harphool Chand to come after them and they would hand over the child at village Virka. Pawan Kumar (PW1) told this fact also to the police as well as his wife. He joined the police party and the police set up a barricade (naka) on the drain of village Virka. There two persons came on a white colour Bajaj Chetak scooter without number and Parteek Kumar alias Prince (PW2) son of Pawan Kumar (PW1) was sitting in between those persons. The police party apprehended those two persons and the child namely Parteek Kumar alias Prince (PW2) was recovered from them. The police conducted search of those two persons. The two persons who had brought the son of the complainant (PW1) at the aforesaid place were identified by him and they had taken `8 lacs from him. On search of the said two persons, currency notes of `1 lac each were recovered from them. Besides, a mobile phone from each of them was recovered. In cross-examination it is stated by Pawan Kumar (PW1) that he was working as a Deed Writer at Phillaur since 1980. He earned `400 to `500/- per day. He was an income tax payee but he could not tell how much tax was paid by him as it was known to his counsel. Parteek Kumar alias Prince (PW2) who was kidnapped was also examined by the prosecution. Harphool Chand was given up by the prosecution as being won over by the accused. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that Harphool Chand was not examined even though Pawan Kumar (PW1) stated that he along with Harphool Chand gave the money to the accused on 15.5.2004 is quite inconsequential as Harphool Chand has been given up being won over.
The facts and circumstances of the case are as such that it has been established on record that Pawan Kumar (PW1) CRA No.586-DB of 2007 [14] did give an amount of `8 lacs to the accused on 15.5.2004 as ransom for the release of his son namely Parteek alias Prince (PW-2). It has come on record that Pawan Kumar (PW1) pays income tax. He had withdrawn `1.5 lacs from his bank account; besides, about `3000 to 4000/- were lying at his home. Pawan Kumar (PW-1) borrowed `50,000/- from Surender Mohan (PW-9), `2 lacs from Chuhar Singh (PW-10), `1 lac from Sarwan Singh (PW-11), `50,000/- from Ravi Gautam (PW-13), `1 lac from Ravinder Kumar (PW-14). Besides, Jeevan Ram father of Pawan Kumar (PW1) and Manju Sharma from their joint account No.994 of Canara Bank, Bada Pind withdrew `1,20,000/-on 15.5.2004 as has been deposed by Santosh Kumar Pandey, Probationary Officer, Canara Bank, Bada Pind (PW-12). Therefore, the money was indeed given by the complainant (PW-1) to the accused. The recoveries of the currency notes have been effected. The first note and the last note of each bundle that was recovered was found to be signed by the complainant Pawan Kumar (PW1). As such it is a case where the guilt of the accused is established not only from the recovery of the currency notes but the resource of the amount that was given has also been established. In the circumstances, mere non-examination of Harphool Chand is hardly of any consequence.
Parteek Kumar alias Prince (PW2) who was kidnapped has also been examined. The learned Additional
Sessions Judge taking into consideration the age and the answer given by the witnesses was of the opinion that he could be examined as a witness in the present case. It was stated by Parteek Kumar (PW2) when he came to the Court that he had come to send the accused persons who had kidnapped him to jail. It is stated that he was kidnapped on 14.5.2004 at about 3.00/3.30 p.m. when he was returning from his school. When he CRA No.586-DB of 2007 [15] crossed the 'katcha pulli' (unmetalled bridge), the accused were standing there. They inquired as to who was the son of 'Brahmin' namely Prince. He told them that he was Prince. On this the said persons told Parteek Kumar alias Prince (PW2) that his mother was sick and she was admitted in Royal Hospital at Goraya. He (PW2) told them that he would first go to his house on the cycle and then he could go to Royal Hospital. But the said persons said that his mother was critical and he could accompany them. They parked the cycle of Prince (PW2) on the side of the road and took him on a scooter by making him sit in between the two persons. The scooter was without a number. When they reached Royal Hospital, Parteek Kumar (PW-2) told the accused that the hospital had come but these persons said that his mother had been shifted to Goraya. Then from Goraya, Parteek Kumar alias Prince (PW2) was brought to Phagwara. He was given eatables and then was taken to a room on the Banga Road. That room belonged to the person who was sitting in the centre between the two other two accused in Court. On Court questioning the said person was identified as Vijay Kumar. Thereafter they kept on roaming here and there. The accused wearing the red cap took him to his house. On Court questioning, the accused person who was wearing a red cap disclosed his name as Charanjit Singh. Parteek Kumar (PW-2) stayed for the night in the house of accused (Charanjt Singh) wearing the red cap. When he was taken in the room the wife and daughter of Charanjit Singh and the accused who was sitting in the centre namely Vijay Kumar were also present there. At night Parteek Kumar alias Prince (PW2) was allowed to talk to his father on telephone. On the next day, they were going along the canal on the same scooter and both the accused mentioned above were present with him. When they were going along the CRA No.586-DB of 2007 [16] side of the canal and were about to take a turn, he (PW-2) saw his father present with few police officials who were not in their uniforms. These accused persons did not tell him (PW2) where they were taking him at that time. When he (PW-2) was kept in the room of a 'bhaiya', he (PW2) had seen from the window all the three accused persons dividing the money amongst themselves. He (PW2) had given his statement to the police regarding the occurrence. Parteek Kumar (PW-2) was cross- examined by the learned defence counsel. It is inter alia stated in the cross-examination that the school closed at 3.00 pm. There were 10/15 more children who were returning home along with him. The occurrence had taken place at a distance of ½ kilometer from his school. When the accused persons had inquired about Parteek Kumar alias Prince (PW-2), his class fellows Roopnit, Harsharan, Satish and some senior students were present there. There were 5/6 students senior to him who were not from his village. They were of sixth, seventh, eighth or tenth classes. The accused persons had talked to him (PW-2) for about five minutes at the spot. They did not go inside Royal Hospital. From the place of occurrence, they went to Phagwara straight way. They had taken eatables from Novelty Sweets by sitting inside the shop. In the shop, other customers and the shop-keeper were present there. It is stated that Novelty Sweets is situated in a congested area. Parteek Kumar alias Prince (PW2) further stated that he did not raise any alarm because he was not told by that time that he had been kidnapped. The accused persons told him (PW-2) that they would go to the hospital after taking some eatables.
Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that Parteek Kumar alias Prince (PW2) did not raise any noise when he was at Novelty Sweets is CRA No.586-DB of 2007 [17] without substance as Parteek Kumar alias Prince (PW2) himself has stated that he did not raise any noise because he did not know till that time that he was kidnapped. The accused in fact told him that they would go to hospital after taking some eatables. Nothing could be brought from the cross-examination of Parteek Kumar alias Prince (PW2) which would, in any manner, help the appellants.
The prosecution has also examined Onkar Singh (PW-
8) who was also a student of Excelsior School, Goraya and was aged 14 years. He stated that on that day he had come to Court for giving his statement. The learned trial Court observed that from the age as well as from the Court questioning, it was clear that the witness was capable of giving his statement in Court. It is stated by Onkar Singh (PW-8) that he was a student of Excelsior Convent School, Goraya and studying in the 8th Class. Roopnit and Parteek Kumar (PW-2) were his class fellows. On 14.05.2003, he (PW-8) along with Parteek Kumar (PW-2), Roopnit and other boys were returning to their home after school. The school ends at about 2.00 pm and they were on the bridge of the 'katcha' (unmettaled) path falling in village Rurka. When they reached there, two persons came on a white Bajaj colour scooter. They started inquiring about Parteek Kumar alias Prince (PW-2). They were saying that mother of Parteek (PW-2) was admitted in Royal Hospital, Goraya. Those two persons asked Parteek (PW-2) to accompany them to the hospital. They took Parteek (PW-2) with them on their scooter. Onkar Singh (PW-8) along with Roopnit went to the house of Parteek (PW-2). They found the mother of Parteek (PW-2) at home and told her about the incident. She further informed her husband (Pawan Kumar PW-1) on telephone. Onkar Singh (PW-8) identified two of the accused persons who had come on a scooter to take Parteek (PW-2). One CRA No.586-DB of 2007 [18] was wearing a light blue T-shirt. On the asking of the Court, the person wearing the light blue T-shirt disclosed his name as Charanjit Singh. The other person it is stated was wearing a light brown shirt. On the asking of the Court, that person disclosed his name as Vijay Kumar. Statement of Onkar Singh (PW-8) was recorded by the Police on 16.07.2004. Earlier to that, the Police had come to him for making an inquiry. Onkar Singh (PW-8) was cross-examined by the counsel for Charanjit Singh and Vijay Kumar at considerable lenght. However, nothing favourable could be brought out except that in his statement (Ex.DB), the word 'Royal' was not mentioned and only hospital was mentioned which is not of much consequence.
The prosecution also examined Smt. Paramjit Principal Excelsior Convent School, Goraya (PW-5). She had
brought the attendance register of Parteek Kumar Sharma (PW-2) for the month of May, 2004. On 14.05.2004, Parteek Sharma (PW-2), it is stated, was present in school. The school she stated ends at 2.45 pm. In the circumstances, it may be noticed that the prosecution case stands established from the fact that the kidnapping had taken place and the prosecution has established that an amount of `8 lacs was raised and then given to the accused. Thereafter, the son (PW2) of the complainant (PW1) was recovered. Parteek Kumar alias Prince (PW2) who was kidnapped himself has stated that he was kidnapped. The fact of his kidnapping is corroborated by Onkar Singh (PW-8) who is a school mate of Parteek Kumar alias prince (PW-2). In the circumstances, there is no reason whatsoever to doubt the prosecution case.
CRA No.586-DB of 2007 [19] The other contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the offence under Section 364-A IPC is not made out. Section 364-A IPC reads as under:-
"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 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."
Section 364-A IPC was inserted by Section 2 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1993 (Act No.42 of 1993) with effect from 22.5.1993. The said Section was further amended by the Indian Penal Code (Amendment) Act, 1995 (Act No.24 of 1995) with effect from 26.5.1995. Section 2 thereof relates to amendment of Section 364-A IPC to the effect that in Section 364-A IPC, for the words "any other persons", the words "any foreign state or international inter-governmental organization or any other person" shall be substituted.
Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the case of Balwant Singh and another v. State of Haryana, 2002 (2) RCR (Crl) 369 (DB) (P&H) and Vinod Kumar v. State of CRA No.586-DB of 2007 [20] Haryana, 2005 (4) RCR (Crl) 474 (DB) (P&H) to contend that the offence under Section 364-A IPC would be applicable only when the offence is committed against the Government or any other foreign State or international inter-governmental organization and not at the behest of an individual.
We have gone through the aforesaid judgments. It may be noticed that in Balwant Sing's case (Supra) while reproducing Section 364-A IPC after the words "inter- governmental organization", the words "or any other person"
were omitted. Therefore, this Court observed that Section 364-A IPC is applicable only when kidnapping for ransom etc. is done in order to compel the government or any foreign state or international inter-governmental organization to do or abstain from doing any act. It was held in the said case that no such compulsion had been caused to the Government etc. and an individual person had been compelled to pay the ransom amount. Therefore, the offence under Section 364-A IPC, it was observed, was not made out. In the case of Vinod Kumar (Supra) the judgment in Balwant Singh's case (Supra) was followed and reiterated. However, as already noticed the words "or any other person" were not reproduced while reproducing Section 364-A IPC. Therefore, it is to be seen whether the offence against the appellants is made out being any other person. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malleshi v. State of Karnataka, 2004 (4) RCR (Crl.) 391 held that to attract the provisions of Section 364-A IPC what was required to be proved was; (1) that the accused kidnapped or abducted the person; and (2) kept him under detention after such kidnapping and abduction; and (3) that the kidnapping or abduction was for ransom. In the present case, the appellants had kidnapped and abducted Parteek Kumar alias Prince (PW2). He was kept under CRA No.586-DB of 2007 [21] detention after such kidnapping and abduction inasmuch as he was kept for a day in the house of two persons. A demand was raised for ransom which was communicated to the complainant Pawan Kumar (PW1). Besides, he was taken away from the lawful guardianship of his father Pawan Kumar (PW-1).
Therefore, the ingredients of the offence under Section 364-A are clearly made out. In Malleshi v. State of Karnataka's case (Supra) it was held that ultimately the question to be decided was "what was the intention? Was it demand of ransom? It was further held that there could be no definite manner in which demand was to be made. Besides, the question that who pays the ransom was not the determinative fact.
The position before insertion of Section 364-A IPC with effect from 22.5.1993 in terms of Section 2 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 1993 was that kidnapping or abduction was primarily covered by the provisions of Section 364 IPC which provided for kidnapping or abduction in order to murder. It was provided that whoever kidnaps or abducts any person in order that such person may be murdered or may be so disposed of as to be put in danger of being murdered, shall be punished with imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. There was no provision in respect of cases involving kidnapping or abducting for ransom. Section 364 and Section 384 IPC were resorted to by the prosecution to prosecute a person where he had committed the offence of kidnapping. It was to provide for punishing those who kidnapped for ransom that Section 364-A IPC was incorporated and inserted in the Indian Penal Code. Before the Amendment with effect from 26.05.1995 the words "any foreign State or international inter- governmental organization" were not there. Section 364-A IPC CRA No.586-DB of 2007 [22] related to kidnapping or abducting any person or keeping a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction, and threatening to cause death or hurt to such person, or by his conduct giving rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt, or causing hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom. The offence before the 1995 amendment was in respect of government or any other person. It is after the 1995 amendment that the words, "any foreign State or international inter- governmental organization or any other person" were added. Any other person is not analogous to the government, any foreign State or international inter- governmental organization. Normally where general words follow a particular word, the general words are to be construed as applying only to the words which they follow. However, the provisions of Section 364-A IPC do not require that the general words are to be limited in their scope to the identical words specifically followed. The intention of the Legislature was to provide punishment for those indulging in kidnapping or abducting for ransom and it would apply where a person is kidnapped 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. Therefore, to compel any other person would include the complainant where a demand for ransom had been raised for releasing the kidnapped or abducted person. In the circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the provisions of Section 364-A IPC are inapplicable is devoid of any merits.
The appellants had indeed kidnapped and abducted Parteek Kumar alias Prince (PW2) and had demanded and CRA No.586-DB of 2007 [23] received a ransom of `8 lacs from the complainant Pawan Kumar (PW1). After receiving the ransom amount, Parteek Kumar alias Prince (PW2) who had been kidnapped and abducted was released. The ransom amount was recovered from the accused. Therefore, it would be a case of kidnapping and abducting for ransom in respect of which the provisions of Section 364-A IPC apply.
For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.
(S.S. SARON) Judge (JORA SINGH) 08.09.2011 JUDGE amit